

Links: Home \| swarblaw - law discussions		swarb.co.uk - law index These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
		Human Rights - From: 2002 To: 2002 This page lists 1224 cases, and was prepared on 28 July 2015. Â In re L (Care: Assessment: Fair Trial) [2002] 2 FLR 730 2002 FD Munby J Children, Human Rights The court set out precepts to be followed by courts in preparing for care proceedings so as to ensure that they did not infringe the rights of the family to respect for their family life under article 8. Munby J: '… it must never be forgotten that, with the state's abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the kind which judges of this Division are typically invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge in any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make. It is a terrible thing to say to any parent – particularly, perhaps, to a mother – that he or she is to lose their child for ever.' European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers Â Regina -v- Chief Constable of Norfolk, ex parte DF [2002] EWHC 1738 (Admin) 2002 Admn Crane J Police, Human Rights The court considered the duties of the police to protect the applicants. Held: The search for a phrase which encapsulates a threshold of risk which engages article 2 is a search for a chimera. The degree of risk described as 'real and immediate' in Osman …., as used in that case, was a very high degree of risk calling for positive action from the authorities to protect life. It was 'a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party' which was, or ought to have been, known to the authorities. Such a degree of risk is well above the threshold that will engage article 2 when the risk is attendant upon some action that an authority is contemplating putting into effect itself. It was not an appropriate one in the present context. European Convention on Human Rights 2 1 Cites Â Morris -v- London Borough of Newham [2002] EWHC 1262 Admin 2002 Admn Jackson J Housing, Human Rights The claimant complained that the defendant authority had failed to provide her and her family with suitable accommodation pursuant to its duty under section 193. Breach of duty was conceded. The relief sought by the claimant included damages for breach of Article 8. Held: "Absent special circumstances which interfere with private or family life, a homeless person cannot rely upon Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 in order to found a damages claim for failure to provide accommodation". Although the defendant's breach of duty had compelled the claimant and her family to live in "grossly overcrowded and unsatisfactory accommodation" for a period of 29 weeks, this did not infringe Article 8. Housing Act 1996 193 - European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers Â Ocalam -v- Turkey 46221/99; [2002] 37 EHRR 10 2002 ECHR Human Rights 1 Citers Â Â Frette -v- France; ECHR 2002 - (2003) 2 FLR 9; (2002) 38 EHRR 438 Â Pelligrini -v- Italy (2002) 35 EHRR 2 2002 ECHR Human Rights 1 Citers Â Barclays Bank plc -v- Alcorn [2002] EWHC 498 (Ch) 2002 ChD Hart J Human Rights, Land Hart J said: " It seems to me however, that her general submission on the effect of the Human Rights Act in relationship to a mortgagee's action for possession is correct, namely, that the matter is regulated by section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 in a way which draws a balance which Parliament was entitled to draw between the interests of occupants of dwelling houses and the interests of mortgagees, and does so in a manner which is proportionate and reasonable, and allows the court, in the exercise of its discretion, to apply criteria of reasonableness and proportionality in either granting or denying the mortgagee its remedy." Administration of Justice Act 1970 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Pellegrini -v- Italy (2002) 35 EHRR 44 2002 ECHR Human Rights The court considered the relationship between the Italian civil courts and the Ecclesiastical Court of the Rome Vicariat, a church court classed by the European Court as a court of the Vatican (properly the Holy See), a state which is not a party to the Convention. Ms Pellegrini married Mr Gigliozzi in 1962 in a religious marriage, which had legal effect in Italy. In 1990 she was granted a decree of separation and an order for maintenance was made in her favour. Meanwhile Mr Gigliozzi brought proceedings in the ecclesiastical court for annulment of the marriage on the grounds of consanguinity. The ecclesiastical court annulled the marriage. She appealed her way through the Italian Courts. Held: The European Court allowed Ms Pellegrini's application, finding that the procedure in the ecclesiastical court was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 6: "The court notes first of all that the declaration of nullity of the applicant's marriage was issued by the Vatican courts and then made operative by the Italian courts. The Vatican has not ratified the Convention, and the application is moreover directed against Italy: the task of the court is therefore to enquire not into whether the proceedings before the ecclesiastical courts complied with article 6 of the Convention, but into whether the Italian courts, before granting confirmation and execution of the said annulment, duly checked that the proceedings relating thereto satisfied the guarantees contained in article 6; such a check is required, in fact, where the judgment for which confirmation and execution is sought emanates from the courts of a country which does not apply the Convention. Such a check is all the more necessary where execution would have serious implications for the parties." 1 Citers Â Unison -v- United Kingdom [2002] IRLR 497 2002 ECHR Human Rights (Third Chamber) The freedom of association under Article 11 of the ECHR did not include a right for a union to require "that an employer enter into or remain in any collective bargaining arrangement". "The Court recalls that, while Article 11 paragraph 1 includes trade union freedom as a specific aspect of freedom of association, this provision does not secure any particular treatment of trade union members by the State. There is no express inclusion of a right to strike or an obligation on employers to engage in collective bargaining. At most, Article 11 may be regarded as safeguarding the freedom of trade unions to protect the occupational interests of their members. While the ability to strike represents one of the most important of the means by which trade unions can fulfil this function, there are others. Furthermore Contracting States are left a choice of means as to how the freedom of trade unions ought to be safeguarded (see the Schmidt and Dahlström v Sweden judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A no. 21, pp.15–16, paragraphs 34–36)." European Convention on Human Rights 11 1 Citers Â Regina -v- D [2003] QB 90; [2002] EWCA Crim 990 2002 CACD Criminal Evidence, Human Rights Article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention does impose an absolute prohibition on the admission of hearsay evidence against criminal defendants. European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(d) 1 Citers Â P, C and S -v- United Kingdom [2002] 2 FLR 631; (2002) 35 EHRR 31 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Children The local authority had obtained the issue of an Emergency Protection Order under the 1989 Act to remove a child at birth. Held: Where the possibility of harm arose from the mother introducing something into the child's system (such as a laxative) that did not justify separating mother and child. Children Act 1989 1 Citers Â Clarke -v- Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council [2002] JPL 1365 2002 CA Buxton LJ Planning, Human Rights The court referred to "the very difficult question of how potential family and cultural rights of gypsy and Romany populations interact with and are affected by the municipal planning laws of this country", 1 Citers Â Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd and others -v- Serious Fraud Office [2002] EWCA 3023 2002 Admn Lord Woolf CJ Criminal Practice, Human Rights There was to be an investigation by the SFO into allegations that some in the pharmaceutical industry were dishonestly increasing the price charged for drugs supplied to the NHS. On 27th March 2002 District Judge Nicholas Evans received written application for warrants. Held: The court considered the statutory requirements applicable to such warrants, and the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act. The starting point was said to be sections 15 and 16 of the 1984 Act. Lord Woolf CJ assumed without finally deciding that "all the requirements of sections 15 and 16 have to be complied with if a warrant is to protect a search and the seizure of goods within premises to which it relates". As to section 2 of the 1987 Act: "The structure of section 2 is clear. It is intended that the powers that are given to the Director under subsection (3) should be used to obtain documents, if it is appropriate to do so, and it is only in cases that do not lend themselves to being dealt with under subsection (3) that the powers contained in subsections (4) and (5), which were those used here by the SFO, in entering the premises in question, can be used." The hard drive of a computer would be "a document" and, which it is true that section 2(18) defined "document" in broad terms. The court accepted a submission that Article 8 of the European Convention had to be taken into account when considering sections 15 and 16 of the 1984 Act, and section 2 of the 1987 Act: "In what I have said so far I have had fully in mind the fact that on any showing there is an intrusion into the protection provided by Article 8(1) where searches of the sort that took place in this case, and the removal of material as happened here, occur. However, Article 8(1) does not stand by itself; it stands subject to Article 8(2). It is my view that in drawing the legislation contained in PACE in the terms that it has, parliament is endeavouring to give statutory effect to the same principles which Article 8 is designed to protect .. The need to consider Article 8 only arises if sections 15 and 16 do not provide sufficient protection in themselves. In my judgment they do. Article 8 in a case of this sort does not add anything to what has been the position hitherto." Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15 16 - Criminal Justice Act 1987 2 - European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers Â Re B (a Minor) [2002] 1 FLR 545 2002 CA Children, Human Rights Six of the seven children were already in care, and an application was to be made for the seventh. The guardian proposed a residential assessment of mother and baby. The authority sought separate assessments, with an immediate interim order, and the child placed with foster parents. The mother appealed. Held: Her appeal was allowed. The court had not properly balanced the advantages of assessing the mother and baby together. The purpose of a s38 order was to provide the court with the information it would need to make a final order. The judge had jurisdiction to make an order though the interim order had been made. The proposed assessment satisfied the test that it would provide the court with the information it would need to make the final order. Children Act 1989 838(6) Â In re S (Adult patient) (Inherent jurisdiction: Family life); Sheffield City Council -v- S [2003] 1 FLR 292; [2002] EWHC 2278 (Fam) 2002 FD Munby J Health, Family, Human Rights A court could only grant an order permitting treatment despite the absence of an adult patient's consent by virtue of the doctrine of necessity. Munby J said: "in our multi-cultural and pluralistic society the family takes many forms . . The fact is that many adults and children, whether through choice or circumstance, live in families more or less removed from what until comparatively recently would have been recognised as the typical nuclear family. But – and this is the point - the family, whatever form it takes, is the bedrock of our society and the foundation of our way of life." 1 Citers Â A -v- United Kingdom (2002) 36 EHRR 917 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Defamation "Statements made by MPs outside the Houses of Parliament are subject to the ordinary laws of defamation and breach of confidence, save where they are protected by qualified privilege." and "Furthermore, the immunity afforded to MPs in the United Kingdom appears to the Court to be in several respects narrower than that afforded to members of national legislatures in certain other signatory States and those afforded to Representative to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Members of the European Parliament. In particular, the immunity attaches only to statements made in the course of parliamentary debates on the floor of the House of Commons or House of Lords. No immunity attaches to statements made outside Parliament, even if they amount to a repetition of statements made during the course of Parliamentary debates on matters of public interest. Nor does any immunity attach to an MP's press statements published prior to parliamentary debates, even if their contents are repeated subsequently in the debate itself." European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers Â Snooks and Dowse -v- United Kingdom [2002] JLR 475 2002 ECHR Human Rights The court described the way that a Jersey Jurat was selected: "Jurats are . . elected by a special electoral college whose members include the bailiff, the jurats, advocates and solicitors of the Royal Court and members of Jersey's legislature, the States Assembly. Jurats do not necessarily have a legal qualification, but are usually individuals with a known history of sound judgment and integrity, which has been consistently demonstrated throughout a lengthy professional, business or civic life." 1 Citers Â Ontario Human Rights Commission -v- Brockie (2002) 22 DLR (4th) 174 2002 Commonwealth, Human Rights (Ontario) A Christian printer complained that he was required to offer services to an homosexual group. The court considered that argument that it was a human rights breach to ask a person to promote what they believe to be a sin, namely sexual relations between unmarried persons. Held: He was required to offer his services, but not to print leaflets which actively promoted an homosexual lifestyle and which was dismissive of Christian beliefs. It was not an answer to say that those who hold the relevant religious belief should not be free to offer services to sections of the public unless prepared to act inconsistently with the belief. Such an approach would lead to withdrawal from society of those holding it, which should be neither the aim nor function of human rights jurisprudence. It would risk the replacement of one set of predominant orthodox views with another. A careful balancing exercise is required. 1 Citers Â Re C (A child) [2002] 1 FLR 545 2002 CA Children, Human Rights A family residential assessment was considered. A residential hospital assessment was recommended, but the authority proposed a less expensive local assessment. The parents sought an order under section 38(6) for the recommended assessment. The judge thought the recommended option preferable, but ordered the local assessment out of considerations of cost. Held: The parents' appeal was allowed. Cost was only one factor, though an important one. A local authority making a proposal based on cost must provide cogent evidence, and might include consideration of the alternatives, including shared funding. The family's human rights had been engaged, and the judge had been wrong to go ahead on untested written evidence. Children Act 1989 38(6) Â Karl Construction Limited -v- Palisade Properties Plc [2002] ScotCS 350; 2002 SC 270 14 Jan 2002 SCS Lord Drummond Young Scotland, Litigation Practice, Human Rights The maintenance of procedural safeguards is necessary if the use of the Mareva injunction procedure is not to be held to be incompatible with article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. 1 Citers [ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ] Â Z R -v- Poland 32499/96 15 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Maczynski -v- Poland 43779/98 15 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Â Maczynski -v- Poland 43779/98; [2002] ECHR 1 15 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Z R -v- Poland 32499/96; [2002] ECHR 2 15 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nora McKenna and Others -v- British Aluminum Ltd Times, 25 April 2002 16 Jan 2002 ChD Mr Justice Neuberger Nuisance, Human Rights Claimants began an action in nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher against the respondents. They sought to strike out the claim on the basis that some of the claimants did not have a sufficient interest in the land affected. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher was an extension of the law of nuisance. Held: On an interlocutory basis it was probable that the law of nuisance did apply, requiring the claimant's to have an interest in land, but in the light of the extension of Human Rights law to common law, the claim could not be described as having no prospect of success, and the strike out request failed. 1 Cites Â Gollner -v- Austria 49455/99; [2002] ECHR 4 17 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] Â Tsirikakis -v- Greece 46355/99; [2002] ECHR 8; [2003] ECHR 41; [2002] ECHR 8 17 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved (Judgement available in French only) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Adlard, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport & the Regions and others [2002] EWHC 7 (Admin) 17 Jan 2002 Admn Planning, Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Laine -c- France 41476/98; [2002] ECHR 6; [2002] ECHR 6; [2011] ECHR 1261 17 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Maurer -v- Austria 50110/99; [2002] ECHR 7 17 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] Â Tsirikakis -v- Greece 46355/99 17 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved Â Adlard, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport & the Regions and others [2002] EWHC 7 (Admin) 17 Jan 2002 Admn Collins J Planning, Human Rights The court dismissed a claim for judicial review of the refusal by the Secretary of State to call in, and establish a public inquiry to consider, certain applications for planning permission and listed building and conservation area consents which the local planning authority (the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham) had decided in principle to grant. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Josef Fischer -v- Austria 33382/96; [2002] ECHR 5 17 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights The applicant had been convicted of criminal offences. He submitted an appeal by way of a plea of nullity. He complained that the Appeal court dealt with his application without serving on him a copy of the advice given to the Court by the Procurator General and without giving him and opportunity to comment, infringing his right to a fair trial. The government replied that the comments of the Procurator General were not those of a prosecutor. Held: The principle of equality of arms had not been respected. The defendant was entitled to know and have opportunity to comment upon representations made to the court. European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gollner -v- Austria 49455/99; [2002] ECHR 4 17 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] Â Maurer -v- Austria 50110/99 17 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Â Calvelli And Ciglio -v- Italy; ECHR 17-Jan-2002 - 32967/96; [2002] ECHR 3 Â Maurer -v- Austria 50110/99; [2002] ECHR 7 17 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings The applicant alleged that criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonably protracted. In 1994 defamation proceedings had been begun against him. An altercation was alleged to follow. He was convicted of insult in 1998. Held: The defence that the applicant had not exhausted his national rights did not succeed. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the applicants' conduct and the conduct of the competent authorities. In this case that time limit had been breached. [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (Quintavalle) -v- Secretary of State for Health; CA 18-Jan-2002 - Times, 25 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2002] QB 628; [2002] EWCA Civ 29; [2002] 2 WLR 550 Â Â Lee -v- Leeds City Council; Ratcliffe and Others -v- Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council; CA 21-Jan-2002 - Times, 29 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 6; [2002] 1 EGLR 103 Â Â Matthews -v- The Ministry of Defence; QBD 22-Jan-2002 - Times, 30 January 2002; [2002] EWHC 13 (QB) Â Dean Grey -v- The United Kingdom 34377/02; [2002] ECHR 854 23 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Rezvi Times, 28 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2002] UKHL 1; [2002] 1 All ER 801; [2003] 1 AC 1099; [2002] UKHRR 374; [2002] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 70; [2002] 2 Cr App R 2; [2002] HRLR 19 24 Jan 2002 HL Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights Having been convicted of theft, a confiscation order had been made against which the appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal certified a question of whether confiscation provisions under the 1988 Act were in breach of the defendant's human rights. Are applications for confiscation orders criminal proceedings under the Convention, and if so do the assumptions made infringe the right to a fair trial? Held: European decisions and Philips indicated clearly that confiscation applications are not separate criminal charges, but rather part of the sentencing process. Even if the Convention had been engaged, the provisions are proportionate and would comply. Lord Steyn said that the legislation is "a precise, fair and proportionate response to the important need to protect the public". Lord Steyn said: "It is a notorious fact that professional and habitual criminals frequently take steps to conceal their profits from crime. Effective but fair powers of confiscating the proceeds of crime are therefore essential. The provisions of the 1988 Act are aimed at depriving such offenders of the proceeds of their criminal conduct. Its purposes are to punish convicted offenders, to deter the commission of further offences and to reduce the profits available to fund further criminal enterprises. These objectives reflect not only national but also international policy. The United Kingdom has undertaken, by signing and ratifying treaties agreed under the auspices of the United Nations and the Council of Europe, to take measures necessary to ensure that the profits of those engaged in drug trafficking or other crimes are confiscated: see the United Nations convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (19 December 1988); Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime, Strasbourg, 8 November 1990. These Conventions are in operation and have been ratified by the United Kingdom." Criminal Justice Act 1988 Part VI 4 - Drug Trafficking Act 1994 72AA - Terrorism Act 2000 Part III - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 1 Cites 1 Citers [ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Benjafield, Regina -v- Leal, Regina -v- Rezvi, Regina -v- Milford Gazette, 22 March 2001; Times, 28 December 2000; Times, 28 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2002] UKHL 2; [2002] 2 WLR 235; [2002] 1 All ER 815; [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 71; [2002] HRLR 20; [2002] 2 Cr App R 3 24 Jan 2002 HL Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing Statutory provisions which reversed the burden of proof in cases involving drug smuggling and other repeat offenders, allowing confiscation orders to be made were not necessarily in contravention of the article 6 right. However the question of whether the statutory provision infringed the right to a fair trial was for each particular case which came before the court. The confiscation process had to be looked at as against both limbs of article 6. Having reversed the burden of proof, the provision must look at both in the light of article 6 and also against and in deference to the policy which the legislature considered was in the public interest. The provisions of the Human Rights Act were not retrospective. Human Rights Act 1998 - Proceeds of Crime Act 1995 - Drug Trafficking Act 1994 4(3) - European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Cites 1 Citers [ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ] Â Smart -v- Sheffield City Council: Central Sunderland Housing Company Limited -v- Wilson Times, 20 February 2002; Gazette, 15 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 4; [2002] LGR 467; [2002] HLR 639 25 Jan 2002 CA Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Laws, And, Lord Justice Kay Housing, Human Rights, Local Government Each tenant had become unintentionally homeless, and was granted a non-secure tenancy of accommodation under section 193. Complaints of nuisance were received from neighbours. Possession orders were obtained and now challenged under the Human Rights Act. The service of the original notice to quit, engaged the Human Rights Act, but the action taken was lawful and proportionate. So far as such non-secure tenancies were concerned, the judge was not obliged to grant possession, but had a discretion. Held: The homes were to be treated as such despite any lack of security. Nevertheless, the balance of interests under Article 8(2) was properly struck. There are some statutory regimes under which the balance of interests arising under Article 8(2) has in all its essentials been struck by the legislature and under which a court, before ordering a defendant to give up possession of accommodation where he has been living, is not obliged to adjudicate upon the specific merits of coercive action in an individual case. The word 'engaged' is not part of the vocabulary of human rights law. Housing Act 1996 193 - Housing Act 1985 21(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 8.2 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â UK Waste Management Ltd, Re Application for Judicial Review [2002] NICA 8; [2002] NI 130 25 Jan 2002 CANI Northern Ireland, Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police -v- Joseph Martin McNally Times, 06 March 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 14 25 Jan 2002 CA Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And, Sir Christopher Slade Human Rights, Police The claimant sought damages against the police for malicious prosecution and otherwise. He sought disclosure of whether a party referred to in the case as X, had at any time been a paid informer. The police appealed an order to disclose this. Counsel for the police had sought to rely upon assertions made as to X's behaviour. The judge refused a public interest immunity certificate. Held: The general rule is against disclosure of informant's identities even in civil cases, but there are exceptions, including the need to avoid a miscarriage of justice. In this case there was such a risk, and the judge's order stood. The judge need not restrict himself to the list of exceptions in the NSPCC case. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â A B -v- The Netherlands 37328/97; [2002] ECHR 9 29 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Prisons Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8 in respect of control of correspondence with the Commission and with lawyer; No violation of Art. 8 in respect of other correspondence; Violation of Art. 13 1 Citers [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dyer -v- Watson and Burrows Times, 04 February 2002; (DRA Nos 1 and 2 of 2001); 2002 SLT 229; [2004] 1 AC 379; [2002] UKPC D1 29 Jan 2002 PC Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton, Lord Millett, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Criminal Practice, Scotland, Crime, Human Rights Parties challenged the compliance of proceedings with the convention where there had been considerable delay. Held: The reasonable detention provision (article 5(3)) and the reasonable time requirement (article 6(1)) conferred free-standing rights, which could be broken notwithstanding absence of effect on the fairness of the trial. The threshold for delay was high, but once established the court must look at the particular case, referring to the complexity of the case, contributions to the delay by the defendant and by the prosecution. Shortage of facilities for prosecutors was not to be accepted as a valid reason for delay. Neither defendant was held in custody. In one case, police officers complained of a twenty month delay. That was not sufficient to breach their rights. A youth complained of a twenty seven month delay. He was still only sixteen at the date of trial This delay did infringe his rights. When examining the reasonable time provisions for children, the court must also look to obligations under the UN Convention. (The High Court of Justiciary) During a trial, the appellant police officers gave evidence which the sheriff openly said appeared to him to be perjured. The officers complained that the delay in prosecution was a devolution issue, and an infringement of their rights to a speedy trial. The second case involved a delayed case involving investigation of allegations of child sex abuse by a youth. Held: The delay from April 1998 to January 1999 had to be looked at in the context of the simplicity of the case against the officers and the need for prosecutions of police officers to be given priority. In JK's case the prosecution was required to proceed within a year and had failed to do so. The procedural law of Scotland is distinctive in including stringent rules to avoid delay in criminal proceedings, but the statutory rules do not apply to summary proceedings. The reasonable detention and reasonable time requirements confer important rights on the individual, and they should not be watered down or weakened, but the rights do not exist in a vacuum. The convention is concerned not with departures from the ideal, but with infringements of basic human rights. In the police officers' case a delay of twenty months was not enough of itself to be such an infringement. The prosecutors appeal against the action being struck out was upheld. In JKs case as a child it was important that proceedings be speedy. In this case an overall delay of up to 28 months was in the absence of proper explanation from the crown, unreasonable. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Justice - European Convention on Human Rights - Scotland Act 1998 6 - Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 65(1) - United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1 Cites 1 Citers [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] Â Fielding -v- The United Kingdom 36940/97; Times, 25 February 2002; [2002] ECHR 10 29 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Discrimination, Benefits, Income Tax Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) The claimant's wife had died. He sought the benefits, including tax allowances, which would have been paid to him had he been a woman. Before the hearing, a friendly settlement was reached under which the UK government agreed to pay the claim. The 1999 Act already made bereavement benefits available to both men and women. Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 - Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Jordan, Re an Application for Judicial Review [2002] NIQB 7; [2002] NI 151 29 Jan 2002 QBNI Kerr J Northern Ireland, Armed Forces, Coroners, Human Rights The claimant challenged the Lord Chancellor's failure to introduce legislation to ensure that the coroners' system in Northern Ireland comprised with Human Rights Law. 1 Citers Â Moran -v- Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 06 February 2002; Gazette, 15 March 2002; [2002] EWHC 89 (Admin 30 Jan 2002 QBD Maurice Kay J Magistrates, Human Rights The appellant had requested the magistrates to state a case as to why they had ruled against his submission that he had no case to answer. The established rule is that they do not have to give such reasons. He argued that the new Human Rights duties required such reasons to be given to allow a fair trial under article 8. Held: The Act had not changed the situation. A summary trial is a particular procedure, and it was undesirable to require justices to give a detailed assessment of evidence and witnesses at the end of the prosecution case. "Having regard to all that authority, what then is the position in relation to a refusal by Magistrates to accede to a submission of no case to answer? In my judgment, even after 2nd October 2000 there is still no legal obligation on the Magistrates to give reasons for rejecting a submission of no case. It is now usual for us to give reasons following a finding on appeal, and that has been done in this case. If a defendant is concerned about the conduct or outcome of a summary trial, he has a number of procedural options. In particular, (1) an appeal by way of re-hearing in the Crown Court, (2) an appeal by this court by way of case stated, in which case the Justices may be required to explain in the case stated the route by which they reached a particular conclusion, or (3) in some circumstances on application for judicial review." Human Rights Act 1998 1 Citers Â Â Ivan William Allan -v- Glory Anne Clibbery (1); CA 30-Jan-2002 - Times, 05 February 2002; Gazette, 14 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 45; [2002] Fam 261; [2002] 1 FLR 565 Â Guerreiro -c- Portugal 45560/99; [2002] ECHR 11; [2002] ECHR 11 31 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lanz -v- Austria 24430/94 31 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 6-3-b and 6-3-c; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings. Â Ozbey -c- Turquie 31883/96; [2002] ECHR 13; [2002] ECHR 13 31 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lanz -v- Austria 24430/94; [2002] ECHR 12 31 Jan 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 6-3-b and 6-3-c; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (D) -v- Camberwell Green Youth Court; Regina (N) -v- Same etc Times, 13 February 2003; [2003] EWHC 227 (Admin) 4 Feb 2002 Admn Evidence, Human Rights, Children, Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Evidence Defendants appealed orders allowing children to give evidence by video link, and children appealed orders requiring them to attend court to give evidence. Held: The right to a fair trial had to be interpreted broadly. Special measures taken to protect children did not infringe the Article 6 rights of defendants. The rules allowed safeguards to protect the fairness of the trial. The magistrates needed to approach the article differently. European Convention on Human Rights 6 - Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Matthies-Lenzen -v- Luxembourg 45165/99; [2002] ECHR 15 5 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] Â Conka -v- Belgium 51564/99; [2002] ECHR 14; [2011] ECHR 2135 5 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Immigration Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 5-2; Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of P4-4; No violation of Art. 13+3; Violation of Art. 13 + P4-4; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings The applicants were arrested so that they could be deported. They challenged their arrest. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Matthies-Lenzen -v- Luxembourg 45165/99; [2002] ECHR 15 5 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Yolcu -v- Turkey 34684/97; [2002] ECHR 16 5 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â H.L. -c- France 42189/98; [2002] ECHR 22 7 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ozcan -v- Turkey 29701/96; [2002] ECHR 28 7 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â LL -v- France; ECHR 7-Feb-2002 - 41943/98; [2002] ECHR 23 Â Beljanski -c- France 44070/98; [2002] ECHR 17 7 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Meier -c- France 33023/96; [2002] ECHR 25 7 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Binbir -v- Turkey 29913/96; [2002] ECHR 18 7 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â G E Whittaker -v- P & D Watson T/A P & M Watson Haulage Thedepartment of Education & Employment Times, 26 March 2002; EAT/157/01 7 Feb 2002 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination, Human Rights, Employment A party sought from the EAT a declaration as to incompatibility of the exemption of small firms from the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. The industrial tribunal had said it was not a court entitling it to consider such an application. He appealed. Held: Neither the ET nor EAT were courts within the section, and the case must go on to the High Court before the point could be considered. Though this might be puzzling, it remained clear. In future such cases might be dealt with in a way which would expedite the process. EAT Jurisdiction Human Rights Act 1998 4(5) Â Langlois -c- France 39278/98; [2002] ECHR 24; [2002] ECHR 24 7 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zulal -v- Turkey 29703/96; [2002] ECHR 31 7 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Thames Water Utilities Limited -v- Peter Marcic Times, 14 February 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 65; [2002] QB 929; [2002] 2 All ER 55 7 Feb 2002 CA Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Aldous, And, Lord Justice Ward Utilities, Land, Nuisance, Human Rights, Negligence The claimant owned land over which sewage and other water had spilled from the appellant's sewage works. His claim having been dismissed under Rylands v Fletcher, and there being no statutory means of obtaining compensation, the judge was asked to say that his human rights had been infringed insofar as his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been infringed. Whilst it would be reasonably possible to prevent flooding of the claimant's property, protecting all similarly threatened properties would cost impractically large sums. Held: The test for nuisance and negligence had become similar until the point where a positive act to prevent harm was required rather than acting in such a way as to avoid causing harm. There is a clear common law duty to do whatever is reasonable to prevent hazards on the land, however they might arise, from causing damage to a neighbour. The appellant provided the system of sewers for profit, and had not demonstrated that it was not reasonably practicable for them to abate the nuisance. Water Industry Act 1991 94(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â E K -v- Turkey 28496/95; [2002] ECHR 21 7 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 7; Violation of Art. 10; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Metinoglu -v- Turkey 29700/96; [2002] ECHR 26 7 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Uygur -v- Turkey 29911/96; [2002] ECHR 30 7 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Saritac -v- Turkey 29702/96; [2002] ECHR 29 7 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dinleten -v- Turkey 29699/96; [2002] ECHR 20 7 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cilengir -v- Turkey 29912/96; [2002] ECHR 19 7 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mikulic -v- Croatia 53176/99; [2002] ECHR 27; ECHR 2002-I 7 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 13 with regard to the complaint under Article 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13 with regard to the complaint under Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award European Convention on Human Rights 6-1 13 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hari Dhima -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2002] EWHC 80 (Admin); [2002] Imm AR 394 8 Feb 2002 QBD Lord Justice Auld, And, Mr Justice Ouseley Immigration, Human Rights The appellate sought judicial review to challenge an order for his return to Albania. He said that he would be subject to persecution from communist sympathizers, and his life was at risk for a blood feud. Adjudicators had variously accepted and rejected both claims, but concluded that he could avail himself of internal flight. He challenged the applicability of the test in Horvath in human rights cases, which did not include a qualification to the right for protection where state aid may be available. Held: The conventions should be read purposively. The difference is apparent only. The human rights test is affected by the availability of state protection, because that reduces the risk of harm. The burden was on the applicant to show that internal flight was not available. That test had been properly applied by the adjudicator. Review refused. Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 3 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Sciacchitano Et Lo Sciuto -c- Italie 52982/99; [2002] ECHR 80; [2002] ECHR 80 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Scinto -c- Italie 52918/99; [2002] ECHR 81; [2002] ECHR 81 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Seccia -c- Italie 52983/99; [2002] ECHR 82; [2002] ECHR 82 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Savona -v- Italie (No 2); ECHR 12-Feb-2002 - 52977/99; [2002] ECHR 79 Â Raffio -c- Italie 52962/99; [2002] ECHR 77; [2002] ECHR 77 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rapisarda -c- Italie 52913/99; [2002] ECHR 78; [2002] ECHR 78 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Serino -c- Italie 52917/99; [2002] ECHR 83; [2002] ECHR 83 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â R.L. -c- Italie 52971/99; [2002] ECHR 76; [2002] ECHR 76 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Policriti Et Gioffre -c- Italie 52976/99; [2002] ECHR 75; [2002] ECHR 75 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pelagatti -c- Italie 56098/00; [2002] ECHR 74; [2002] ECHR 74 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Sessa -c- Italie; ECHR 12-Feb-2002 - 52959/99; [2002] ECHR 84 Â Mostacciuolo -c- Italie 52926/99; [2002] ECHR 72; [2002] ECHR 72 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mesiti -c- Italie 56101/00; [2002] ECHR 71; [2002] ECHR 71 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mattaliano -c- Italie 52973/99; [2002] ECHR 70; [2002] ECHR 70 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Maria Giovanna Rossi -c- Italie 52988/99; [2002] ECHR 69; [2002] ECHR 69 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Murru -c- Italie (NÂ° 5) 56089/00; [2002] ECHR 73; [2002] ECHR 73 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vaccarella -c- Italie 52967/99; [2002] ECHR 93; [2002] ECHR 93 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zotti Et Ferrara -c- Italie (NÂ° 1) 52963/99; [2002] ECHR 100; [2002] ECHR 99 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â An.M. -c- Italie 52979/99; [2002] ECHR 33; [2002] ECHR 33 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Luciani -c- Italie 52919/99; [2002] ECHR 68; [2002] ECHR 68 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zotti -c- Italie 52966/99; [2002] ECHR 99; [2002] ECHR 101 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vincenza Ferrara -c- Italie 52916/99; [2002] ECHR 98; [2002] ECHR 98 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vetrone -c- Italie 52965/99; [2002] ECHR 97; [2002] ECHR 97 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ventrone -c- Italie 52960/99; [2002] ECHR 95; [2002] ECHR 95 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vazzana -c- Italie 56086/00; [2002] ECHR 94; [2002] ECHR 94 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sirufo -c- Italie 52989/99; [2002] ECHR 85; [2002] ECHR 85 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â V.P. Et F.D.R. -c- Italie 44333/98; [2002] ECHR 92; [2002] ECHR 92 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.P.A. -c- Italie (NÂ° 8) 56100/00; [2002] ECHR 91; [2002] ECHR 91 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tommaso -c- Italie 52922/99; [2002] ECHR 90; [2002] ECHR 90 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Stabile -c- Italie 52990/99; [2002] ECHR 89; [2002] ECHR 89 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sposito -c- Italie 56094/00; [2002] ECHR 88; [2002] ECHR 88 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Spinelli -c- Italie 56105/00; [2002] ECHR 87; [2002] ECHR 87 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Societa Croce Gialla Romana S.A.S. -c- Italie 56093/00; [2002] ECHR 86; [2002] ECHR 86 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Venturin -c- Italie 56096/00; [2002] ECHR 96; [2002] ECHR 96 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bruno -c- Italie 52914/99; [2002] ECHR 37; [2002] ECHR 37 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cullari -c- Italie 56104/00; [2002] ECHR 45; [2002] ECHR 45 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cristina -c- Italie 56085/00; [2002] ECHR 44; [2002] ECHR 44 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Colasanti -c- Italie 56095/00; [2002] ECHR 43; [2002] ECHR 43 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ciancetta Et Mancini -c- Italie 52970/99; [2002] ECHR 42; [2002] ECHR 42 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ciampaglia -c- Italie 56102/00; [2002] ECHR 41; [2002] ECHR 41 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cazzato -c- Italie 52915/99; [2002] ECHR 40; [2002] ECHR 40 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Beneventano -c- Italie 52974/99; [2002] ECHR 35; [2002] ECHR 35 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Calvagni Et Formiconi -c- Italie 56092/00; [2002] ECHR 38; [2002] ECHR 38 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â De Santis -c- Italie (NÂ° 3) 52923/99; [2002] ECHR 48; [2002] ECHR 48 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bernardini -c- Italie 56091/00; [2002] ECHR 36; [2002] ECHR 36 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Barone -c- Italie 52987/99; [2002] ECHR 34; [2002] ECHR 34 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Almanio Antonio Romano -c- Italie 52969/99; [2002] ECHR 32 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zotti Et Ferrara -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 52964/99; [2002] ECHR 101; [2002] ECHR 100 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Niso -c- Italie 52978/99; [2002] ECHR 51; [2002] ECHR 51 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gawracz -v- Turkey 32055/96; [2002] ECHR 56 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement). [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Carmine Falzarano -c- Italie 52972/99; [2002] ECHR 39; [2002] ECHR 39 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Genovesi -c- Italie 56099/00; [2002] ECHR 58; [2002] ECHR 58 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â L.B. -c- Italie 56087/00; [2002] ECHR 66; [2002] ECHR 66 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ital Union Servizi S.A.S. -c- Italie (NÂ° 3) 44914/98; [2002] ECHR 65; [2002] ECHR 65 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ital Union Servizi S.A.S. -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 44913/98; [2002] ECHR 64; [2002] ECHR 64 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ital Union Servizi S.A.S. -c- Italie (NÂ° 1) 44396/98; [2002] ECHR 63; [2002] ECHR 63 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â It.R. -c- Italie 56088/00; [2002] ECHR 62; [2002] ECHR 62 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â I.P.A. S.R.L. -c- Italie 52957/99; [2002] ECHR 61; [2002] ECHR 61 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â D'Alfonso -c- Italie 52925/99; [2002] ECHR 46; [2002] ECHR 46 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bevilacqua -c- Italie 56103/00; [2002] ECHR 59 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Damiano -c- Italie 52921/99; [2002] ECHR 47; [2002] ECHR 47 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ge.Im.A. S.A.S. -c- Italie 52984/99; [2002] ECHR 57; [2002] ECHR 57 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Frattini Et Autres -c- Italie 52924/99; [2002] ECHR 55; [2002] ECHR 764; [2002] ECHR 55; [2002] ECHR 770 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Francesco Lombardo -c- Italie 52958/99; [2002] ECHR 54; [2002] ECHR 54 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Francesco De Rosa -c- Italie 52920/99; [2002] ECHR 53; [2002] ECHR 53 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â E.M. -c- Italie 44519/98; [2002] ECHR 52; [2002] ECHR 52 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Dell'Aquila -c- Italie; ECHR 12-Feb-2002 - 56106/00; [2002] ECHR 50 Â L.S. -c- Italie 52986/99; [2002] ECHR 67; [2002] ECHR 67 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gucci -c- Italie 52975/99; [2002] ECHR 60; [2002] ECHR 637; [2002] ECHR 60; [2002] ECHR 642 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Del Bono Et Autres -c- Italie 52968/99; [2002] ECHR 49; [2002] ECHR 49 12 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Mason, Wood, McClelland, Tierney -v- Regina; CACD 13-Feb-2002 - Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 385; [2002] 2 Crim App R 38 Â Hooper and others -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] EWHC 191 (Admin) 14 Feb 2002 Admn Moses J Discrimination, Benefits, Human Rights The claimants alleged that the way they were treated as widowers under the benefits subjected them to discrimination. Held: The continued payment of widow's pension was objectively justified. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Wilkinson -v- Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2002] EWHC 182 (Admin); [2002] STC 347 14 Feb 2002 Admn Moses J Taxes Management, Discrimination, Human Rights The case concerned the differential tax treatment between men and women, which granted to widows a tax allowance that was not granted to widowers. Held: The court made a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ pursuant to section 4. 1(1) of the TMA gives to the Commissioners a wide statutory power to grant concessions to taxpayers which derogate from their obligations to pay tax in accordance with the letter of the applicable tax legislation Human Rights Act 1998 4 - Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 262 - Taxes Management Act 1970 1(1) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Jensen -v- Denmark 48470/99; [2002] ECHR 105 14 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Visser -v- The Netherlands 26668/95; [2002] ECHR 108 14 Feb 2002 ECHR Mr L. Caflisch, President, Mr P. Kuris, Mr R. Türmen, Mr J. Hedigan, Mrs W. Thomassen, Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Mrs H.S. Greve Human Rights, Criminal Evidence The applicant alleged that in criminal proceedings against him, there was used in evidence a statement from an anonymous witness, and his defence rights had been unacceptably restricted in breach of Article 6. The police said that witnesses were frightened of reprisals. On appeal, the court allowed as evidence a written summary from the police. On appeal again, that decision was set aside, but a witness was interrogated by the judge in private, with the judge putting questions for the defence. The applicant's conviction was to a decisive extent based on the anonymous testimony, yet such evidence should not be used to that extent. Breaches were established. European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 Art 3(1) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Caldeira Et Gomes Faria -c- Portugal 45648/99; [2002] ECHR 104; [2002] ECHR 104 14 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Theakston -v- MGN Ltd [2002] EWHC 137 (QB); [2002] EMLR 22; [2002] EMLR 398 14 Feb 2002 QBD Ouseley J Media, Human Rights The claimant, a celebrity sought to restrain publication by the defendant of information about his sex life, consisting of pictures of him in a brothel. The court considered the test for the grant of an injunction to restrain publication under the 1998 Act. Held: The court could not see how the approach required by section 12(3) can be other than that the claimant must show that it is more probable than not that he will succeed in obtaining an injunction at trial. It could not envisage, as a matter of ordinary English, an injunction which is likely to be granted but more probably than not will be refused. Ouseley J said: "If Parliament had intended the relevant test to be whether the claimant had a real prospect of success, it would have used that familiar legal phrase. I consider that it intended to impose the discernibly more rigorous requirement which it did in this particular context of freedom of expression." and "Sexual relations within marriage at home would be at one end of the range or matrix of circumstances to be protected from most forms of disclosure; a one night stand with a recent acquaintance in a hotel bedroom might very well be protected from press publicity. A transitory engagement in a brothel is yet further away". The court refused an injunction restraining publication of a verbal depiction of the claimant's activities in a brothel, but granted an injunction restraining the publication of the photographs. Human Rights Act 1998 12(3) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Tourtier -c- Portugal 44298/98; [2002] ECHR 107; [2002] ECHR 107 14 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Hobbs, Hobbs, Hobbs, Charge [2002] EWCA Crim 387 14 Feb 2002 CACD Lord Justice Pill Mrs Justice Hallett Dbe And His Honour Judge Fawcus Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights The defendants appealed sentences of 7.5 and 3 years for conspiracy to facilitate illegal immigration. They had hired lorries with a view to bringing people in It was submitted that the sentences were outside the powers under the Act. The sentence had been increased to ten years. The conspiracy extended over the point where the sentence maximum was increased, and the applicable overt act occurred after the change. Held: Where a conspiracy continues beyond a change in the law it was appropriate to consider the two time spans separately. Under the convention a sentence must not extend beyond one provided for in law. A conspiracy is complete when the agreement is made, and the maximum sentence must be derived at that point. Appeal allowed. Criminal Law Act 1977 1(1) - Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 29 - Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Commencement No 2 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2000 (SI 2000 No 168) - European Convention on Human Rights 7(1) 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Sociedade Penificadora Bombarralense, Lda -c- Portugal 46143/99; [2002] ECHR 106; [2002] ECHR 106 14 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Abdurrahman Orak -c- Turquie 31889/96; [2002] ECHR 102; [2002] ECHR 102 14 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Amaral De Sousa -c- Portugal 45566/99; [2002] ECHR 103; [2002] ECHR 103 14 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Miroslava Zourkova V Cyprus 5019/06; [2008] ECHR 980 18 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Abate Et Ferdinandi -c- Italie 56226/00; [2002] ECHR 109 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Donato -c- Italie 56221/00; [2002] ECHR 119; [2002] ECHR 119 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Centis -c- Italie 56222/00; [2002] ECHR 112; [2002] ECHR 112 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Boiseau -c- France 53118/99; [2002] ECHR 111; [2002] ECHR 111 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Conte Et Autres -c- Italie 56208/00; [2002] ECHR 114; [2002] ECHR 114 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Alba D'Amore -c- Italie 56224/00; [2002] ECHR 110; [2002] ECHR 110 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cornia -c- Italie 56202/00; [2002] ECHR 115; [2002] ECHR 115 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (K) v Newham London Borough Council and Another Times, 28 February 2002 19 Feb 2002 QBD Collins J Education, Human Rights Parents applied for secondary school places, indicating three single sex schools. This was from a clear religious conviction. The local authority allocated another place, without giving reasons, but did provide a pamphlet setting out its policy, which showed that one criterion was a preference for a single-sex school. Held: The need to respect religious views was enshrined in the Convention. Some positive action was required by the state to accord with that right. No such action had been taken by the authority and the decision allocating the child to the school was set aside. School Standards and Framework Act 1998 86(1)(b) - European Convention on Human Rights Protocol 1 Art 2 1 Cites Â De Cesaris -c- Italie 56217/00; [2002] ECHR 116; [2002] ECHR 116 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Colonnello Et Autres -c- Italie 56206/00; [2002] ECHR 113; [2002] ECHR 113 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Michele Stabile -c- Italie 56218/00; [2002] ECHR 126; [2002] ECHR 126 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zaheg -c- France 46708/99; [2002] ECHR 134; [2002] ECHR 134 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sardo -c- Italie 56201/00; [2002] ECHR 133; [2002] ECHR 133 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rodolfi -c- Italie 51664/99; [2002] ECHR 132; [2002] ECHR 132 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ripoli -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 56215/00; [2002] ECHR 131; [2002] ECHR 131 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ripoli -c- Italie (NÂ° 1) 56214/00; [2002] ECHR 130; [2002] ECHR 130 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Presel -c- Italie 56219/00; [2002] ECHR 129; [2002] ECHR 129 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dente -c- Italie 56205/00; [2002] ECHR 117; [2002] ECHR 117 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Piacenti -c- Italie 56213/00; [2002] ECHR 127; [2002] ECHR 127 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Pede -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 56225/00; [2002] ECHR 118; [2002] ECHR 118 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mastropasqua -c- Italie 56220/00; [2002] ECHR 125 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lugnan In Basile -c- Italie 56207/00; [2002] ECHR 124; [2002] ECHR 124 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Limatola -c- Italie 56204/00; [2002] ECHR 123; [2002] ECHR 123 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Giuseppe Napolitano -c- Italie 56211/00; [2002] ECHR 122; [2002] ECHR 122 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ginocchio -c- Italie 56203/00; [2002] ECHR 121; [2002] ECHR 121 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Folletti -c- Italie 56212/00; [2002] ECHR 120; [2002] ECHR 120 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Polcari -c- Italie 56223/00; [2002] ECHR 128; [2002] ECHR 128 19 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Jones (Anthony William); HL 20-Feb-2002 - Times, 21 February 2002; Gazette, 28 March 2002; [2002] 2 All ER 113; [2002] UKHL 6; [2003] 1 AC 1; [2002] 2 WLR 524; [2002] HRLR 23; [2002] 2 Cr App R 9; (2002) 166 JPN 431; (2002) 166 JP 333 Â Lindsay -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 27 February 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 1766; [2002] EWCA Civ 267 20 Feb 2002 CA Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Carnwath Customs and Excise, Human Rights The applicant was stopped at Customs carrying cigarettes over the quantity set for personal use. His car was seized, and Customs refused to return it. The cigarettes were for his own use and for sale to family members. He claimed the seizure was an interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property. Held: The policy, adopted as a blanket policy, was disproportionate. It made no distinction between professional smugglers and others. There had been no proper attempt to strike a balance between the public interest and private rights, and there was no proportionality as required. The tenor of the letter implementing the policy made it plain that restoration should only be ordered in exceptional circumstances, and that message was reinforced by the example given: "a first time technical offence where a minimal amount of tobacco has been brought back for a relative's consumption with payment at cost." The policy was unlawful. The value of the car did not have to be taken into account on impounding for a commercial import. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 (1953 Cmd 8969) - Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 152 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Hasan Yilmaz Et Autres -c- Turquie 26309/95; [2002] ECHR 141 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Marks &Amp; Ordinateur Express -c- France 47575/99; [2002] ECHR 143; [2002] ECHR 143 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Victorino D'Almeida -c- Portugal 43487/98; [2002] ECHR 151; [2002] ECHR 151 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ziegler -v- Switzerland 33499/96; [2002] ECHR 152 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Stoppini -v- Italy 39716/98; [2002] ECHR 149 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tiberio -v- Italy 38656/97; [2002] ECHR 150 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pane -v- Italy 37509/97; [2002] ECHR 146 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â De Filippis -v- Italy 33967/96; [2002] ECHR 138 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â B And F -v- Italy 32671/96; [2002] ECHR 135 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Celona -v- Italy 32541/96; [2002] ECHR 136 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Colucci -v- Italy 31605/96; [2002] ECHR 137 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pezza -v- Italy 31525/96; [2002] ECHR 147 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Guglielmi -v- Italy (No 2) 31480/96; [2002] ECHR 140 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Matyar -v- Turkey 23423/94; [2002] ECHR 144; [2002] ECHR 144 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 8 or P1-1; No violation of Art. 14 or Art. 18; No violation of Art. 6 or Art. 13; No failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34 (former 25-1) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ghidotti -v- Italy 28272/95; [2002] ECHR 139 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (estoppel); Violation of P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sipavicius -v- Lithuania 49093/99; [2002] ECHR 148 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-3-a or Art. 6-3-b [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hasan Yilmaz And Others -v- Turkey 26311/95; [2002] ECHR 141; 26309/95; 26310/95 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (on the Application of Mullen) -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department; QBD 21-Feb-2002 - Times, 27 February 2002; Gazette, 28 March 2002; 2002] EWHC 230 (Admin); [2002] 1 WLR 1857 Â Meleddu -c- Italie 54307/00; [2002] ECHR 145; [2002] ECHR 145 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Wolfgang Schussel V Austria 42409/98; [2002] ECHR 845 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Lamperi Balenci -v- Italy 31260/96; [2002] ECHR 142 21 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Ponting) -v- Governor of HMP Whitemoor, Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 215 (Admin ) 22 Feb 2002 CA Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Clarke, Lady Justice Arden Prisons, Human Rights The applicant appealed a refusal of permission to use a computer for preparation of materials for his litigation save under conditions imposed by the Prisons Service. He was dyslexic, and with a low IQ. He claimed that the conditions operated so as effectively to restrict his access to justice, and to interfere with his right for privacy for his correspondence. Held: A balance was to be found with good order and discipline, and security, and the prisoner's rights. Circumstances might exist where restrictions on the use of a computer would interfere with both rights, but in this case they did not save only the restriction on their use to overnight hours.. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Â Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- International Transport Roth Gmbh & others; CA 22-Feb-2002 - Times, 26 February 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 158; [2002] 3 WLR 344; [2003] QB 728 Â Frette -v- France 36515/97; [2002] ECHR 156; (2002) 38 EHRR 438; [2003] 2 FLR 9; [2002] ECHR 156 26 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights A single homosexual man complained that the respondent state had made it impossible for him to adopt a child. Held: The claim was within the ambit of article 8 as regards respect for family life, but the court dismissed the claim under article 14, in conjunction with article 8, on margin of appreciation grounds. The claimant succeeded on a separate complaint of a breach of article 6. There was the legitimate aim of protecting the interests of children at a time when child psychiatrists and psychologists were divided in their opinions of the effects of being adopted by homosexual parents. Article 14 "… complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to 'the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms' safeguarded by those provisions." European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Del Sol -v- France 46800/99; [2002] ECHR 153 26 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Legal Aid European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Essaadi -c- France 49384/99; [2002] ECHR 155 26 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kaplan -c- Turquie 24932/94; [2002] ECHR 158 26 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Unabhangige Initiative Informationsvielfalt -v- Austria 28525/95; [2002] ECHR 163 26 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Magalhaes Pereira -v- Portugal 44872/98; [2002] ECHR 161; [2002] ECHR 161 26 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dichand And Others -v- Austria 29271/95; [2002] ECHR 154 26 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings The court pointed to the distinction in the context of political debate between a value judgment, where the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there is a factual basis for the impugned statement, and a gratuitous personal attack where there is insufficient factual basis, where interference may be justified. European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Morris -v- The United Kingdom 38784/97; (2002) 34 EHRR 1253; [2002] ECHR 162 26 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Armed Forces Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to general structure of court martial system; No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to specific complaints; No violation of Art. 6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings The factor which gave rise to an allegation of bias is that the members of a court-martial are subject in general to "the risk of outside pressure .. and that there was no statutory or other bar to their being made subject to external Army influence when sitting on the case" The risk of perceived bias was because of pressure on the decision-maker not to make a decision of which his employer would disapprove. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â HM -v- Switzerland 39187/98; [2002] ECHR 157; [2002] 38 EHRR 314; (2004) 38 EHRR 17; [2002] MHLR 209 26 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Health European Convention on Human Rights 5(1) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Krone Verlag Gmbh &Amp; Co Kg -v- Austria 34315/96; [2002] ECHR 159 26 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kutzner -v- Germany 46544/99; (2002) 35 EHRR 653; [2002] ECHR 160 26 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award The mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of family life, and the placement of children in foster homes or other accommodation which they do not share with their parents constitutes an interference with the right protected by article 8. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â H (A Healthcare Worker) -v- Associated Newspapers Limited Times, 19 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 195 27 Feb 2002 CA Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Carnwath Health, Information, Human Rights, Media, Civil Procedure Rules, Contempt of Court The applicant had been a health care worker, but was no longer working. He had come to be HIV positive, and an order was sought protecting his identity from disclosure in the press. He had evidence that the NHS guidelines on notification of patients of having been treated. He declined to provide details of his private patients for notification. He had obtained an order under the rules to protect his identity within the proceedings. Held: The order against the newspaper would better have been obtained as part of the first action, but the two could be consolidated. The order had allowed the authority to be named, but restricted the newspaper publishing anything which might lead directly or indirectly to his identification. Both parties challenged parts of the order. The order preventing the naming of the Health Authority was intended only to protect the identity of the worker, and was properly made. There was a balancing exercise to be had, and also there was a need to respect the privacy of those who had been treated by H. The Health authority also had interests which it had a duty to protect. The court had power to protect its identity to avoid a situation which would seriously interfere with its statutory duties. The consequence of identifying the authority would include also the inevitable discovery of the identity of H. N should not be identified. H must hand over such records of his private patients as was necessary to allow a look-back exercise, and identify any who might have been at risk. Data Protection Act 1988 - Civil Procedure Rules 39.2.(2) - Human Rights Act 1998 Sch1 Art 10 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Panza -c- Italie 52841/99; [2002] ECHR 256; [2002] ECHR 256 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nazzaro -c- Italie 51136/99; [2002] ECHR 248; [2002] ECHR 248 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mancino -c- Italie 52819/99; [2002] ECHR 231; [2002] ECHR 231 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Nero Et Autres -c- Italie; ECHR 28-Feb-2002 - 52832/99; [2002] ECHR 249 Â Nicola Del Grosso -c- Italie 51137/99; [2002] ECHR 250; [2002] ECHR 250 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ocone -c- Italie 51029/99; [2002] ECHR 251; [2002] ECHR 251 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pacifico -c- Italie 51105/99; [2002] ECHR 252; [2002] ECHR 252 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Paduano -c- Italie 51114/99; [2002] ECHR 253; [2002] ECHR 253 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Palma Gaudino -c- Italie 51135/99; [2002] ECHR 255 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Melillo -c- Italie 51118/99; [2002] ECHR 243; [2002] ECHR 243 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pascale -c- Italie 52826/99; [2002] ECHR 257; [2002] ECHR 258 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pascale Et Autres -c- Italie 52837/99; [2002] ECHR 258; [2002] ECHR 257 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pasquale Falzarano -c- Italie 51121/99; [2002] ECHR 259 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pellegrino Bianco -c- Italie 52804/99; [2002] ECHR 260 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pengue -c- Italie 51162/99; [2002] ECHR 261; [2002] ECHR 261 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pallotta -c- Italie 52829/99; [2002] ECHR 254 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mastrocinque -c- Italie 52827/99; [2002] ECHR 238; [2002] ECHR 238 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Maria Antonia Circelli -c- Italie 51112/99; [2002] ECHR 232; [2002] ECHR 232 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Maria De Rosa -c- Italie 51141/99; [2002] ECHR 233 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Spagnoletti -c- Italie 51115/99; [2002] ECHR 279; [2002] ECHR 279 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Petrillo -c- Italie 51025/99; [2002] ECHR 262; [2002] ECHR 263 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Worldii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mario Francesco Palmieri -c- Italie 51022/99; [2002] ECHR 234; [2002] ECHR 234 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mario Mongillo -c- Italie 52840/99; [2002] ECHR 235; [2002] ECHR 235 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Michele D'Angelo -c- Italie 51163/99; [2002] ECHR 245; [2002] ECHR 245 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Martino -c- Italie 51168/99; [2002] ECHR 237; [2002] ECHR 237 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Natalina De Rosa -c- Italie 51123/99; [2002] ECHR 247; [2002] ECHR 247 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Maturo Et Vegliante -c- Italie 51101/99; [2002] ECHR 239; [2002] ECHR 239 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mazzarelli -c- Italie 52845/99; [2002] ECHR 240; [2002] ECHR 240 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mazzone Et Autres -c- Italie 51130/99; [2002] ECHR 241; [2002] ECHR 241 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Meccariello -c- Italie 51158/99; [2002] ECHR 242; [2002] ECHR 242 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Meola -c- Italie 52818/99; [2002] ECHR 244; [2002] ECHR 244 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Moffa -c- Italie 51133/99; [2002] ECHR 246; [2002] ECHR 246 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mario Truocchio -c- Italie 51166/99; [2002] ECHR 236; [2002] ECHR 236 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vincenzina Riccardi -c- Italie 52820/99; [2002] ECHR 291; [2002] ECHR 291 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tommasina Matera -c- Italie 51167/99; [2002] ECHR 284; [2002] ECHR 284 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tretola -c- Italie 51152/99; [2002] ECHR 285; [2002] ECHR 285 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tudisco -c- Italie 51124/99; [2002] ECHR 286; [2002] ECHR 286 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Uccellini Et Autres -c- Italie 51097/99; [2002] ECHR 287; [2002] ECHR 287 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Urbano Et Autres -c- Italie 52817/99; [2002] ECHR 288; [2002] ECHR 288 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Serafina Ferrara -c- Italie 51128/99; [2002] ECHR 277 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Villari -c- Italie 52811/99; [2002] ECHR 290; [2002] ECHR 290 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tanzillo -c- Italie 52839/99; [2002] ECHR 280; [2002] ECHR 280 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Viscuso -c- Italie 52847/99; [2002] ECHR 292; [2002] ECHR 292 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vitelli -c- Italie 51028/99; [2002] ECHR 293; [2002] ECHR 293 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zeolla -c- Italie 51132/99; [2002] ECHR 294; [2002] ECHR 294 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Maddalena Palmieri -c- Italie 51023/99; [2002] ECHR 230; [2002] ECHR 230 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cuozzo -c- Italie 51149/99; [2002] ECHR 189; [2002] ECHR 189 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zoccolillo Et Autres -c- Italie 52814/99; [2002] ECHR 295; [2002] ECHR 295 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Uzzo -c- Italie 51026/99; [2002] ECHR 289 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ruggiero -c- Italie 51151/99; [2002] ECHR 272; [2002] ECHR 272 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pilla -c- Italie 51139/99; [2002] ECHR 264; [2002] ECHR 264 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Porto -c- Italie 51024/99; [2002] ECHR 265; [2002] ECHR 265 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pucella Et Autres -c- Italie 52825/99; [2002] ECHR 266; [2002] ECHR 266 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Restuccio -c- Italie 51109/99; [2002] ECHR 267; [2002] ECHR 267 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Riccio Et Autres -c- Italie 51096/99; [2002] ECHR 268; [2002] ECHR 268 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rinaldi -c- Italie 51108/99; [2002] ECHR 269; [2002] ECHR 269 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tazza Et Zullo -c- Italie 52836/99; [2002] ECHR 283; [2002] ECHR 282 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rosa Romano -c- Italie 52844/99; [2002] ECHR 271 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tazza -c- Italie 52810/99; [2002] ECHR 282; [2002] ECHR 283 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Salvatore Patuto -c- Italie 51111/99; [2002] ECHR 273; [2002] ECHR 273 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Santagata -c- Italie 52833/99; [2002] ECHR 274; [2002] ECHR 274 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Santina Pelosi -c- Italie 51165/99; [2002] ECHR 275; [2002] ECHR 275 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Scaccianemici -c- Italie 51090/99; [2002] ECHR 276; [2002] ECHR 654; [2002] ECHR 276; [2002] ECHR 659 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Simone Et Pontillo -c- Italie 52831/99; [2002] ECHR 278; [2002] ECHR 655; [2002] ECHR 278; [2002] ECHR 660 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Petrillo Et Petrucci -c- Italie 52828/99; [2002] ECHR 263; [2002] ECHR 262 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Romano Et Autres -c- Italie 52823/99; [2002] ECHR 270 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cristina Cardo -c- Italie 51134/99; [2002] ECHR 187; [2002] ECHR 187 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ciarmoli -c- Italie 52801/99; [2002] ECHR 180; [2002] ECHR 180 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cimmino Et Autres -c- Italie 52815/99; [2002] ECHR 181; [2002] ECHR 181 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ciullo -c- Italie 52807/99; [2002] ECHR 182; [2002] ECHR 182 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Clementina Ferrara -c- Italie 51091/99; [2002] ECHR 183; [2002] ECHR 183 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Colella -c- Italie 51116/99; [2002] ECHR 184; [2002] ECHR 184 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Meo Et Masotta -c- Italie 52813/99; [2002] ECHR 196; [2002] ECHR 195 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Crisci -c- Italie 51147/99; [2002] ECHR 186; [2002] ECHR 186 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Carmine Fiorenza -c- Italie 51144/99; [2002] ECHR 177; [2002] ECHR 177 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â De Filippo -c- Italie 51125/99; [2002] ECHR 190; [2002] ECHR 190 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Del Re -c- Italie 51160/99; [2002] ECHR 191; [2002] ECHR 191 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zuotto -c- Italie 52800/99; [2002] ECHR 296; [2002] ECHR 296 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Dio -c- Italie 51129/99; [2002] ECHR 193; [2002] ECHR 193 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Maria -c- Italie 51131/99; [2002] ECHR 194; [2002] ECHR 194 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Della Ratta -c- Italie [2002] ECHR 192; 51155/99; [2002] ECHR 192 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Concetta Pelosi -c- Italie 51113/99; [2002] ECHR 185; [2002] ECHR 185 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Antonio Izzo -c- Italie 51120/99; [2002] ECHR 171 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd) -v- East Sussex County Council Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd -v- Same Times, 05 March 2002; [2002] UKHL 8; [2003] 1 WLR 348; [2002] 4 All ER 58; [2002] 10 EGCS 158; [2003] 1 P & CR 5; [2002] JPL 821; [2002] NPC 32 28 Feb 2002 HL Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Scott of Foscote Planning, Estoppel, Human Rights The respondent company had asserted that the local authority had made a determination of the issue of whether electricity could be generated on a waste treatment site without further planning permission. The council said that without a formal planning application, no determination had been made. Held: The procedure of making a determination had important consequences. It was one stage of a statutory process, which required for several reasons that there first should be a planning application. Nor, here was there any material upon which as estoppel could be raised against the council. Estoppels may bind individuals, where it would unconscionable for them to deny what they had represented or agreed. But those private law concepts should not be extended into the public law of planning control, which bound everyone. Attempts to reconcile the law of estoppel in private and public law contexts were unsatisfactory. Lord Hoffmann: "Public law can also take into account the hierarchy of individual rights which exist under the Human Rights Act 1998, so that, for example, the individual's right to a home is accorded a high degree of protection … while ordinary property rights are in general far more limited by considerations of public interest . . ." Town and Country Planning Act 1964 64 - Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (SI 1988 No 1813) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ] Â Aceto Et Autres -c- Italie 51031/99; [2002] ECHR 164; [2002] ECHR 164 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Alberto Marotta -c- Italie 51169/99; [2002] ECHR 165; [2002] ECHR 165 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Alfonsina Grasso -c- Italie 51159/99; [2002] ECHR 166; [2002] ECHR 166 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Angelo Giuseppe Guerrera -c- Italie 44413/98; [2002] ECHR 167; [2002] ECHR 167 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Anna Rita Del Vecchio -c- Italie 51027/99; [2002] ECHR 168; [2002] ECHR 168 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cerbo Et Autres -c- Italie 52835/99; [2002] ECHR 179; [2002] ECHR 179 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Antonio Di Meo -c- Italie 52846/99; [2002] ECHR 170; [2002] ECHR 170 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Carolla -c- Italie 51127/99; [2002] ECHR 178; [2002] ECHR 777; [2002] ECHR 178; [2002] ECHR 783 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Arturo Marotta -c- Italie 51138/99; [2002] ECHR 172; [2002] ECHR 172 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Belviso Et Autres -c- Italie 52824/99; [2002] ECHR 173; [2002] ECHR 173 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Biondi Et Autres -c- Italie 52816/99; [2002] ECHR 174; [2002] ECHR 174 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Biondo -c- Italie 51030/99; [2002] ECHR 175; [2002] ECHR 175 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Calabrese -c- Italie 51150/99; [2002] ECHR 176; [2002] ECHR 176 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Mezza -c- Italie 51092/99; [2002] ECHR 197; [2002] ECHR 197 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Antonietta Iannotta -c- Italie 51153/99; [2002] ECHR 169; [2002] ECHR 169 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Iesce Et Autres -c- Italie 51102/99; [2002] ECHR 222; [2002] ECHR 222 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gentile -c- Italie 47186/99; [2002] ECHR 215; [2002] ECHR 215 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Giannotta Et Iannella -c- Italie 52830/99; [2002] ECHR 216; [2002] ECHR 216 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Giovanna De Rosa -c- Italie 51098/99; [2002] ECHR 217 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Giovanni Izzo -c- Italie 51170/99; [2002] ECHR 218 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gisondi -c- Italie 51148/99; [2002] ECHR 219; [2002] ECHR 219 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Meo -c- Italie 51099/99; [2002] ECHR 195; [2002] ECHR 196 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Iacobucci Et Lavorgna -c- Italie 51094/99; [2002] ECHR 221; [2002] ECHR 221 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gaetana Lombardi -c- Italie 51100/99; [2002] ECHR 212; [2002] ECHR 212 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â La Torella -c- Italie 51021/99; [2002] ECHR 223; [2002] ECHR 223 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lagozzino -c- Italie 52802/99; [2002] ECHR 224 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lavorgna Et Iorio -c- Italie 52812/99; [2002] ECHR 225 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lucia Armellino -c- Italie 51093/99; [2002] ECHR 226 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lucia Esposito -c- Italie 51119/99; [2002] ECHR 227; [2002] ECHR 227 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lucia Riccardi -c- Italie 51095/99; [2002] ECHR 228; [2002] ECHR 228 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Giuseppina Perna -c- Italie 52808/99; [2002] ECHR 220 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Falluto -c- Italie 51145/99; [2002] ECHR 206; [2002] ECHR 206 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Resta -c- Italie 51157/99; [2002] ECHR 198; [2002] ECHR 198 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Domenico Colangelo -c- Italie 52821/99; [2002] ECHR 199; [2002] ECHR 199 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Donato Pepe -c- Italie 51143/99; [2002] ECHR 200; [2002] ECHR 200 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Edmondo Truocchio -c- Italie 52809/99; [2002] ECHR 201; [2002] ECHR 201 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Elda Pascale -c- Italie 52842/99; [2002] ECHR 202; [2002] ECHR 202 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Elisa Cardo -c- Italie 51146/99; [2002] ECHR 203; [2002] ECHR 203 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gattone Et Autres -c- Italie 51103/99; [2002] ECHR 214; [2002] ECHR 645; [2002] ECHR 214; [2002] ECHR 650 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Emma Lombardi -c- Italie 51140/99; [2002] ECHR 205; [2002] ECHR 205 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gagliardi -c- Italie 51161/99; [2002] ECHR 213; [2002] ECHR 213 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fasulo -c- Italie 51156/99; [2002] ECHR 207; [2002] ECHR 207 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Formato -c- Italie 51142/99; [2002] ECHR 208; [2002] ECHR 208 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Francesco Armellino -c- Italie 51089/99; [2002] ECHR 209; [2002] ECHR 209 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Francesco Cuozzo -c- Italie 51154/99; [2002] ECHR 210; [2002] ECHR 210 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Franco Et Basile -c- Italie 52843/99; [2002] ECHR 211; [2002] ECHR 211 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Macolino -c- Italie 52822/99; [2002] ECHR 229; [2002] ECHR 229 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Emilia Raccio -c- Italie 51126/99; [2002] ECHR 204; [2002] ECHR 204 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Crovella -c- Italie 51164/99; [2002] ECHR 188; [2002] ECHR 188 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tarantino -v- Italy 51122/99; [2002] ECHR 281 28 Feb 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kutic -v- Croatia 48778/99; [2002] ECHR 297; 48778/99; [2002] ECHR 297 1 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to access to court; No separate issue under Art. 6-1 with regard to length of proceedings; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kutic -v- Croatia 48778/99 1 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to access to court; No separate issue under Art. 6-1 with regard to length of proceedings; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Regina (on the Application of J) -v- London Borough of Enfield and Another Times, 18 April 2002; [2002] EWHC 432 (Admin); [2002] 5 CCLR 434; [2002] 2 FLR 1 4 Mar 2002 Admn Justice Elias Housing, Local Government, Children, Benefits, Human Rights The mother and child were destitute, and sought to oblige the local authority to provide accommodation and support. Held: The duty to a child under the section could not be extended to include a duty to accommodate and support the child and his or her mother. Section 2 of the 2000 Act might be of assistance, being drafted in broad terms to provide new powers for local authorities, including the power to assist in these circumstances. A local authority had power under the 2000 Act to provide an immigrant from Ghana whose status had not yet been determined with financial assistance for acquiring accommodation if this was the only way to avoid a breach of the applicant's Article 8 rights. The facts of that case were that, if the immigrant was not assisted to acquire accommodation, it would be necessary to take her child into care. It was common ground that this would violate her Article 8(1) rights. Where a Convention right would be infringed if a local authority concluded that it was not open to it to exercise a particular power which it had, but that the infringement could be avoided by exercising some other power which it had, the power to exercise that other power becomes a duty to exercise it. Children Act 1989 17 - Local Government Act 2000 2 - European Convention on Human Rights A8 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â London Borough of Tower Hamlets -v- Runa Begum Times, 04 April 2002; Gazette, 18 April 2002; [2002] HLR 70; [2002] EWCA Civ 239 6 Mar 2002 CA The Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales, Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Dyson Housing, Human Rights The applicant had applied for rehousing as a homeless person. She was offered interim accommodation but refused it. Her case was reviewed, and her reasons rejected. She claimed the procedure was unfair, in that the authority was looking at decisions on disputed facts, and reviewing its own decisions on those facts. It was not acting independently. Held: The review was a determination of the applicants civil rights, and not merely the exercise of a discretion. Though there may have been no actual bias in the decision, it was done in private, and there was an appearance of risk of bias. The s204 right of appeal to the county court was part of the same procedure, and was independent. That court had full power to look at those matters at issue, and was a sufficient remedy to any defects in the earlier procedure. European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1 - Housing Act 1996 204(1) - Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 - Local Authority (Contracting Out of Allocation Housing Homelessness Functions) Order 1996 3 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Michalak -v- London Borough of Wandsworth; CA 6-Mar-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 271; [2002] 4 All ER 1136; [2003] 1 WLR 617 Â Â Woodhouse -v- Consignia Plc; Steliou -v- Compton; CA 7-Mar-2002 - [2002] 1 WLR 2558; [2002] 2 All ER 737; Times, 05 April 2002; Gazette, 18 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 275; [2002] All ER (D) 79 Â Khan, Regina (on the Application of) -v- HM Coroner for West Hertfordshire and Another [2002] EWHC 302 (Admin) 7 Mar 2002 Admn Mr Justice Richards Coroners, Human Rights The deceased died in police custody. The coroner refused to leave to the jury possible verdicts of unlawful killing, or death contributed to by neglect, or breach of his right to life. He adjourned the hearing to allow this challenge. Held: Coroners should be cautious of such adjournments. The jury would now deliver any verdict after a four month delay. The deceased had been involved in a struggle in the station, and lost consciousness, but had not been put in the recovery position for some time. Neglect in coroners' cases meant failing to take an opportunity to avoid a death. However there was no evidence to support any conclusion that a relationship of causation existed to support a verdict of neglect. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Andrew Drummond -v- Regina [2002] EWCA Crim 527; [2002] RTR 21 7 Mar 2002 CACD His Honour Judge Mckinnon Crime, Road Traffic, Human Rights The appellant had been convicted of causing death by careless driving with excess alcohol. He said that he had taken alcohol after stopping driving but before being tested. He challenged the weight of the burden of proof ascribed by the statute. The judge had directed the jury that he faced a persuasive burden of establishing that he would not have been over the limit. He said this infringed the assumption of innocence. Held: Any restriction on the presumption of innocence must be justified. The offence differs from those previously considered in that the test is not as to the intention of the accused, but as to the results of a scientific test. Any inexactness in the scientific test will work in favour of the accused, it is the accused who has done something, by drinking after an accident, to make the scientific test less reliable, and it is within the control of the defendant to say how much he had drunk. The interference with the defendant's human rights was reasonable and no more than was necessary. Road Traffic Act 1988 3A - Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 15 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6(2) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Matthew Heasman -v- J M Taylor & Partners [2002] ScotCS 63; 2002 SC 326 8 Mar 2002 SCS Lord Coulsfield and Lord Hamilton and Lord Johnston Scotland, Human Rights, Litigation Practice Appropriateness of use of jury in civil trials in Scotland. 1 Citers [ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ] Â Financial Times Ltd and others -v- Interbrew SA Times, 21 March 2002; Gazette, 18 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 274; [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 229; [2002] EMLR 446 8 Mar 2002 CA Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Sedley, And, Lord Justice Longmore Contempt of Court, Media, Human Rights The appellants appealed against orders for delivery up of papers belonging to the claimant. The paper was a market sensitive report which had been stolen and doctored before being handed to the appellant. Held: The Ashworth Hospital case seemed to have widened the meaning of 'necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime' which was the test under section 10 for the disclosure against a newspaper. The human rights of freedom of the press also must be considered. The respondents sought to make a claim for breach of confidence, and accordingly the tests under section 10 was satisfied. The source's evidently maleficent purpose was critical. Contempt of Court Act 1981 10 - European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Berthill Fox -v- Regina (No 2) [2002] 2 AC 284; [2002] UKPC 13 11 Mar 2002 PC Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Constitutional, Commonwealth (Saint Christopher and Nevis) The appellant had been convicted of murder, for which the penalty was death. He claimed that the sentence was an infringement of his constitutional and human rights. The constitution declared that it prevailed over all other laws, and guaranteed certain fundamental rights and freedoms. Though it allowed for the possibility of the death sentence for murder, he claimed the sentence was inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. Held: The council had already twice held that similar constitutions did not allow for a death penalty which was mandatory. The appeal was allowed, and the case remitted for re-sentencing. Saint Christopher and Nevis Constitution Order 1983 (SI 1983 No 881) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ PC ] - [ Berthill Fox v. The Qu' target-'_ext'>PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] Â Patrick Reyes -v- The Queen Times, 21 March 2002; [2002] 2 AC 235; [2002] UKPC 11; [2002] 2 WLR 1034; 12 BHRC 219; [2002] 2 Cr App R 16 11 Mar 2002 PC Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Human Rights, Constitutional, Criminal Sentencing, Commonwealth (Belize) The Criminal Code of Belize provided that any murder by shooting was to be treated as Class A Murder, and be subject to the mandatory death penalty. The applicant having been convicted, appealed saying this was inhuman or degrading treatment, and infringed his human rights under the constitution. Held: The crime of murder embraced a range of offences of widely varying degrees of criminal culpability. Developments in international law recognising the importance of human rights, and the development of independent legal systems against the background of constitutions guaranteeing fundamental rights. This required legislation to be interpreted. Before independence Belize had been subject to the Convention, and it could not be thought that rights had diminished. The preclusion of any judicial consideration of the degree of culpability was in inhuman treatment, and murder by shooting should be treated as a Class B murder, and the courts given discretion. "The court has no licence to read its own predilections and moral values into the constitution". Constitution of Belize Art 7 - Criminal Code of Belize Art 102 1 Cites 1 Citers [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â A -v- B plc and Another (Flitcroft -v- MGN Ltd); CA 11-Mar-2002 - Times, 13 March 2002; Gazette, 25 April 2002; [2002] 3 WLR 542; [2002] EWCA Civ 337; [2003] QB 195; [2002] 1 FLR 1021; [2002] UKHRR 457; (2002) 12 BHRC 466; [2002] HRLR 25; [2002] 2 FCR 158; [2002] 2 All ER 545; [2002] Fam Law 415; [2002] EMLR 21 Â Regina -v- Hughes [2002] UKPC 12; [2002] 2 AC 259 11 Mar 2002 PC Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Constitutional, Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Commonwealth (Saint Lucia) Having been convicted of murder, the defendant was made subject to the mandatory death penalty applied under St Lucia law. He appealed successfully on the basis that the constitution of St Lucia protected him from inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment under article 5, and the Crown appealed to the Privy Council. Held: The mandatory death penalty is indeed to be regarded as inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The committee which exercised the prerogative of mercy was not an independent tribunal sufficient to save the procedure. The Crown's appeal was dismissed, and the case remitted for re-sentence. Criminal Code of Saint Lucia 1992 172 - Saint Lucia Constitution Order 1978 (SI 1978 No 1901) 5 1 Cites 1 Citers [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sawden -v- The United Kingdom 38550/97; [2002] ECHR 298 12 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Puzinas -v- Lithuania 44800/98 14 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â North Range Shipping Ltd -v- Seatrans Shipping Corporation Times, 18 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 405; [2002] 1 WLR 2397; [2002] 4 All ER 390 14 Mar 2002 CA Lord Justice Aldous, Tuckey LJ Arbitration, Human Rights, Civil Procedure Rules The parties had been involved in an arbitration. The claimant sought leave to appeal. The judge refused to give leave, but did not say exactly why. Held: Human Rights law required a right of appeal. That right could only be exercised properly if the party knew the basis of the decision. The court should state which of the threshold conditions required under s 69 had not been met. The Court of Appeal did have the power to set aside a first instance judge's decision for unfairness, and a decision without sufficient reasons was such. Tuckey LJ said: "If, as is accepted, there is a residual jurisdiction in this court to set aside a judge's decision for misconduct then there can be no reason in principle why the same relief should not be available in a case of unfairness. Each is directed at the integrity of the decision-making process or the decision-maker, which the courts must be vigilant to protect, and does not directly involve an attack on the decision itself." Arbitration Act 1996 69(3) - Human Rights Act 1988 6 - Civil Procedure Rules 52.10(2)(a) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Adamogiannis -c- Grece 47734/99; [2002] ECHR 299; [2002] ECHR 299 14 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â De Diego Nafria -c- Espagne 46833/99; [2002] ECHR 300; [2002] ECHR 300 14 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Malveiro -c- Portugal 45725/99; [2002] ECHR 302; [2002] ECHR 302 14 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Campbell -v- Frisbee [2002] EWHC 328 (Ch) 14 Mar 2002 ChD The Hon Mr Justice Lightman Employment, Damages, Information, Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights The defendant appealed a summary judgement on the claimant's claim with respect to her alleged disclosure of details Miss Campbell's private life. The claimant sought an action for account of profits for breach of the terms of a contract of service. The defendant claimed that a violent assault by the claimant on her was a repudiation of the contract. There were some issues which must go to trial, but the claimant obtained judgement on those matters relating to her private life. Held: To defeat an application for summary judgment the respondent must show some 'real prospect' of success, even if improbable. Would the obligation of confidence be discharged by a repudiation? Restrictive covenants had been considered before, but not obligations of confidence. The Photo Production case established that not all obligations were defeated by a repudiation. The obligation of confidence survived any repudiation. The defendant argued that the restriction restricted her right of free speech. Here there was no overwhelming public interest argument. There was no prospect of success on this point and the appeal failed. Civil Procedure Rules 24.2 - European Convention on Human Rights 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Re S (Children: Care Plan); In re W and B (Children: Care plan) In re W (Child: Care plan); HL 14-Mar-2002 - Times, 15 March 2002; Gazette, 25 April 2002; [2002] 2 AC 291; [2002] UKHL 10 Â Â In re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan); HL 14-Mar-2002 - [2002] UKHL 10; [2002] 2 AC 291; [2002] 2 All ER 192; [2002] UKHRR 652; [2002] BLGR 251; [2002] HRLR 26; [2002] 1 FLR 815; [2002] 2 WLR 720; [2002] Fam Law 413; [2002] 1 FCR 577 Â Gaweda -v- Poland 26229/95 14 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award Â Gaweda -v- Poland 26229/95; (2002) 12 EHRC 486; [2002] ECHR 301 14 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award The court considerd the meaning of the phrase 'prescribed by law': "The Court recalls that one of the requirements flowing from the expression 'prescribed by law' is the foreseeability of the measure concerned. A norm cannot be regarded as a 'law' unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct: he must be able – if need be with appropriate advice – to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail." 1 Citers [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Puzinas -v- Lithuania 44800/98; [2002] ECHR 304 14 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Edwards -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 14-Mar-2002 - Times, 01 April 2002; 46477/99; (2002) 35 EHRR 487; [2002] ECHR 303 Â Regina (Howard and Another) -v-Secretary of State for Health Times, 28 March 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002 15 Mar 2002 QBD Justice Scott Baker Administrative, Health Professions, Human Rights The applicants sought orders that enquiries into the activities of doctors under the Act should be held in public. Held: The Act contained no presumption that enquiries should be in public, and the Wagstaff case created no general principle to that effect. The right to free expression did not include the right to receive from others information they were unwilling to impart. It was for the Secretary of State to make a decision in each case, and his decisions stood. National Health Service Act 1977 2 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 10.1 1 Cites Â Bono, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Harlow District Council Times, 23 April 2002; [2002] EWHC 423 (Admin); [2002] EWHC 423 (Admin) 15 Mar 2002 Admn Mr Justice Richards Housing, Human Rights, Benefits The applicants were self-employed market traders. Their income was low, but they were unable to produce accounts by way of proof. The local authority declined their application for housing benefit in the absence of such proof. They complained that presence of local councillors on the committee which made the decision, made that not an independent body, and that since the issue was one of primary fact, judicial review would not be available. The authority argued that since they were following a statutory duty, their own acts fell within the defence under 6(2)(b). Held: The duty under the 1998 Act was to read statutes, where possible, in such a way as to make that provision compliant. Section 6(2)(b) only provided protection where such interpretation was not available to them. Human Rights Act 19986(2)(b) 8 - Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1971 (1971 No 1987) [ Bailii ] Â Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions -v- Waltham Forest London Borough Council Gazette, 11 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 330 15 Mar 2002 CA Lords Justice Schiemann, Tuckey and Jonathan Parker Planning, Human Rights The house owner sought a lawful use certificate. He wished to use the house as sheltered housing for six people recovering from mental illness, with support from a resident carer. The rules allow such a certificate where there would be a total of six people living in the property. The local authority refused the certificate on the basis that there would be seven people living there including the carer. The inspector granted it on the basis that the change would not be so substantial as to amount to a material change of use. Held: The inspector was correct. The difference was not sufficient to make the change of use substantial. The comparison should be between the existing use and the proposed use, and there was no notional intermediate level of permitted use. If section 192 did affect the owner's human rights the section was a proportionate and legitimate interference. Town and Country Planning Act 1990 55 192 [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Persey and Others) -v- Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Times, 28 March 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] EWHC 371 (Admin) 15 Mar 2002 Admn Lord Justice Simon Brown and Mr Justice Scott Baker Human Rights, Administrative, Agriculture, Information, Judicial Review, Media The applicants sought an order that the government enquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak should be held in public. They argued that the need to re-establish public faith made a decision not to hold the enquiries in public irrational, and that a failure to hold the enquiry in public infringed the applicant's human rights. Held: The distinction between freedom of expression, and of access to information was central. Art 10 created no obligation to provide a public forum for discussion of issues. On the question of whether there is a presumption that an inquiry would be held in public (Wagstaff), this must be approached on a case by case basis with no presumption either way. European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Van Der Kar And Lissaur Van West -v- France 44953/98; [2002] ECHR 318; 44952/98 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Goubert Et Labbe -c- France 49622/99; [2002] ECHR 311; [2002] ECHR 311 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fa'afete Taito -v- The Queen and James McLeod Bennett and 10 others -v- The Queen (Consolidated Appeals) [2002] EWPC 14; [2002] UKPC 15 19 Mar 2002 PC Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Commonwealth, Crime, Legal Aid, Human Rights PC (New Zealand) In each case the defendants had sought and been refused legal aid to appeal against some aspect of their conviction. The system for deciding upon whether they should be granted legal aid did not allow for their participation. They also alleged that the full appeal was then heard again without their involvement and on the basis that since the application for legal aid had been refused, the case was without merit, and the appeal itself was also refused. Held: The system did not properly implement that statute which had been brought in to correct defects in the court practice. Varying orders were made for the several individual cases. [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] Â Sabuktekin -v- Turkey 27243/95; [2002] ECHR 314 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 2 concerning the death of the applicant [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Arnal -c- France 47007/99; [2002] ECHR 305; [2002] ECHR 305 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Beaume Marty -c- France 55672/00; [2002] ECHR 306; [2002] ECHR 306 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Benzi -c- France 46280/99; [2002] ECHR 307; [2002] ECHR 307 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Demetriu -c- Roumanie 32935/96; [2002] ECHR 309; [2002] ECHR 309 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Granata -c- France 39626/98; [2002] ECHR 312; [2002] ECHR 312 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kritt -c- France 57753/00; [2002] ECHR 313; [2002] ECHR 313 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Societe Industrielle D'Entretien Et De Service &Quot;Sies&Quot; -c- France 56198/00; [2002] ECHR 315; [2002] ECHR 315 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Solana -c- France 51179/99; [2002] ECHR 316; [2002] ECHR 316 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vallar -c- France 42406/98; [2002] ECHR 317; [2002] ECHR 317 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Van Der Kar Et Lissaur Van West -c- France 44952/98; [2002] ECHR 318 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Devenney -v- The United Kingdom Times, 11 April 2002; 24265/94; [2002] ECHR 310 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Employment, Discrimination, Northern Ireland Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14 or Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings The applicant had wanted to complain of discrimination on religious grounds under the Act to an Fair Employment Tribunal. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland issued a certificate under the section that he had been dismissed to protect public safety and public order, and that his claim was not to be entertained. He applied to the ECHR complaining that the Act denied him the right to a fair hearing. Held: The interference with his Article 6 rights was disproportionate and unlawful. Though states had a margin of appreciation, with interference with an individual's rights, limitations must not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual so that the very essence of the right was impaired. No explanation for the certificate had been or was to be given. Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 42 - European Convention on Human Rights 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Chaufour -c- France 54757/00; [2002] ECHR 308; [2002] ECHR 308 19 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rusbridger and Another -v- Attorney General [2002] EWCA Civ 397 20 Mar 2002 CA Constitutional, Human Rights, Media The paper wanted to publish an article about the monarchy but was concerened that it might lead to it being prosecuted under the 1848 Act. The complainant sought declarations as to the incompatibility of the 1848 Act with the 1998 Act. Held: The defendant had made no decision (other than not to prosecute) and there was no decision to challenge. Whilst the other applications should not proceed, the court considered that the possible incompatibility of the 1848 Act with the Human Rights Act was a proper matter of public interest and might be pursued. Treason and Felony Act 1848 3 - Human Rights Act 1998 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Entreprises Meton Et Etep -c- Grece 47730/99; [2002] ECHR 321; [2002] ECHR 321 21 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Stasaitis -v- Lithuania 47679/99; [2002] ECHR 327 21 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - ?inancial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vasilopoulou -v- Greece 47541/99; [2002] ECHR 328; [2002] ECHR 633; 47541/99; [2002] ECHR 328; [2002] ECHR 638 21 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14; Just satisfaction reserved [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sajtos -v- Greece 53478/99; [2002] ECHR 326; [2002] ECHR 326 21 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â A T -v- Austria 32636/96; [2002] ECHR 319; 32636/96; [2002] ECHR 319 21 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection joined to merits and rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Article 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vaz Da Silva Girao -c- Portugal 46464/99; [2002] ECHR 329 21 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rego Chaves Fernandes -c- Portugal 46462/99; [2002] ECHR 325; [2002] ECHR 325 21 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nitecki -v- Poland 65653/01 21 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Health The applicant was an elderly man suffering from a life-threatening condition known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). He was prescribed the drug Rilutek to treat the disease but could not afford to pay for it. Held: His complaints to the European Court of Human Rights under Articles 2, 8 and 14 of the Convention were found to be inadmissible. The Court held that: "an issue may arise under Article 2 where it is shown that the authorities of a Contracting State put an individual's life at risk through the denial of healthcare which they have undertaken to make available to the population generally…" 1 Citers Â Etcheveste -c- France 44797/98; [2002] ECHR 322 21 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â APBP -c- France 38436/97; [2002] ECHR 320 21 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nikula -v- Finland 31611/96; [2002] ECHR 324; [2002] ECHR 324 21 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Heather and Another) -v- Leonard Cheshire Foundation Times, 08 April 2002; [2002] 2 All ER 936; [2002] EWCA Civ 366 21 Mar 2002 CA Lord Woolf CJ, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Dyson Judicial Review, Human Rights, Civil Procedure Rules The appellants appealed rejection of their application for judicial review. They were long term residents in a nursing home, which the respondents had decided to close. Held: Though the respondent did exercise some public functions, and its activities were in part paid for by public authorities, its activity of providing residential accommodation was not a public function, and its decisions with regard to that activity were not capable of challenge under Human Rights law. Suggestions in the court below that proceedings should not have been by way of judicial review were sterile, and courts should look beyond the form of the application. A local authority respondent should be careful of its statutory obligations, and duties under Human Rights Law, and could not divest itself of obligations by contracting them out. Civil Procedure Rules 53 54 - National Assistance Act 1948 21(1) 26(1) - Human Rights Act 1998 6 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Etcheveste -v- France Bidart -v- France 44798/98; [2002] ECHR 322; 44797/98 21 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Shayler; HL 21-Mar-2002 - Times, 22 March 2002; Gazette, 25 April 2002; [2002] UKHL 11; [2003] 1 AC 247; [2002] 2 WLR 754; [2002] ACD 58; [2002] HRLR 33; [2002] 2 All ER 477; [2002] UKHRR 603 Â Terence Dancy -v- The United Kingdom 55768/00; [2002] ECHR 852 21 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Berry Trade Ltd and Another -v- Moussavi and Others Times, 10 April 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 477; [2002] BPIR 881 21 Mar 2002 CA Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Mummery and Lady Justice Arden Legal Aid, Contempt of Court, Human Rights The respondent had, it was alleged, had breached worldwide asset freezing orders, and was liable to be committed to prison. Legal Aid was refused by the Legal Services Commission. After several adjournments, the other party offered to pay for solicitor and counsel of his choice. He refused. Held: An application could not proceed without proper opportunity for the contemnor to obtain representation of his choice. Contempt proceedings are criminal proceedings for the purposes of Human Rights law. One more opportunity should be given for him to obtain legal aid, and the court would then look again at alternatives. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Immeubles Groupe Kosser -c- France 38748/97; [2002] ECHR 323; [2002] ECHR 323 21 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hirst -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 10 April 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002; [2002] EWHC 602 (Admin); [2002] 1 WLR 2929 22 Mar 2002 Admn Mr Justice Elias Prisons, Media, Human Rights The applicant, a prisoner challenged the uniform ban on contact by prisoners with the media by telephone, arguing that it infringed his Article 10 rights. Held: Restricting telephone contact with the media was not part of imprisonment. A democratic society need not seek to prevent prisoners from expressing their views directly to the media about grievances or concerns they had about issues affecting them. The policy insofar as it was imposed universally was unlawful. Prison Service Order 4400 6.10 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 10 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Anufrijeva -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 399; [2004] QB 1124 22 Mar 2002 CA Lord Woolf CJ, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR and Auld LJ Immigration, Benefits, Human Rights Three asylum-seekers brought claims of breach of their Article 8 rights. One complained of a local authority's failure to provide accommodation to meet special needs, the other two of maladministration and delay in the handling of their asylum applications. Held: All three claims failed. The essential object of article 8 is to protect individuals against arbitrary interference by public authorities, but it may also give rise to positive obligations. Lord Woolf CJ said: "The remedy of damages generally plays a less prominent role in actions based on breaches of the articles of the Convention, than in actions based on breaches of private law obligations where, more often than not, the only remedy claimed is damages. Where an infringement of an individual's human rights has occurred, the concern will usually be to bring the infringement to an end and any question of compensation will be of secondary, if any, importance." and "We find it hard to conceive . . of a situation in which the predicament of an individual will be such that article 8 requires him to be provided with welfare support, where his predicament is not sufficiently severe to engage article 3. Article 8 may more readily be engaged where a family unit is involved. Where the welfare of children is at stake, article 8 may require the provision of welfare support in a manner which enables family life to continue." European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Kearns; CACD 22-Mar-2002 - Times, 04 April 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 748; [2002] 1 WLR 2815; [2003] 1 CAR 7; [2002] BPIR 1213; [2003] 1 Cr App R 7; [2002] Crim LR 653 Â Regina -v- Perrin [2002] EWCA Crim 747 22 Mar 2002 CACD Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Potter, And Mr Justice Harrison Crime, Human Rights, Media The defendant had been convicted of publishing obscene articles for gain under the Act. He lived in London, and published a web site which was stored or hosted abroad, containing pornographic items. The investigating officer had called up the web-site from within the UK. The defendant appealed saying that he had not acted within the UK, and had not committed the offence, and that the allegation was bad as imprecise, and that there had been no publication within the jurisdiction. Held: Whilst the number of people who might be corrupted had to be more than negligible, no licence to publish was obtained because many readers or viewers would not be corrupted. The availability of the material as a preview page was relevant when considering who might see the article, and may be corrupted. That a viewer may already be corrupted is not to say that the material provided may not further corrupt him. One officer seeing the material was sufficient to constitute publication. The argument as to imprecision required additional words to be imported into the convention. The internet is a worldwide system, and applying the laws of each country in which a page may be read could lead to the most restrictive laws being universally applied. The restriction on expression did engage the defendants rights, but was necessary in a free and democratic society. It was not necessary for a prosecutor to show where the major steps in publication took place to found jurisdiction. See also CL vol 13 issue 2 for comment) Obscene Publications Act 1959 2(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Daniel Times, 08 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 959; [2003] 1 Cr App R 99 22 Mar 2002 CACD Lord Justice Auld, Mr Justice Newman and Mr Justice Roderick Evans Insolvency, Human Rights, Crime The defendant appealed a conviction for hiding assets from her receiver following her bankruptcy. He said that recent case law suggested that the burden of establishing the defence under section 352 was evidential only. Held: The conviction predated the Human Rights Act, and was correct at the time. The Carass ruling applied also to the instant section, but since the issue related to interpretation of a statute, and new interpretations of statutes were not retrospective. Insolvency Act 1986 352 - Human Rights Act 1998 3(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina (S) -v- Chief Constable of South Yorkshire; Regina (Marper) -v- Same Times, 04 April 2002; [2002] EWHC 478 (Admin); [2002] 1 WLR 3223 22 Mar 2002 Admn Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Leveson Criminal Practice, Police, Human Rights The police authority took samples of DNA and fingerprints from the claimants whilst under arrest. After their cases had been dismissed or failed, they requested destruction of the samples and records. Held: There was no engagement of the applicants' art 8 rights to privacy. Even if there was, the keeping of the records would be justified under art 8.2. The new section of the 1984 Act was clear, and anyone would know what would happen with samples and fingerprints taken; they would be retained in the absence of special reason otherwise. The provision was 'necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder or crime' and was proportionate. European Convention on Human Rights 8.1 8.2 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 64(1A) - Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 82 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Butkevicius -v- Lithuania 48297/99; [2002] ECHR 331; [2002] ECHR 331 26 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 6-2; Pecuniary damage - request rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Societe Comabat -c- France 51818/99; [2002] ECHR 339; [2002] ECHR 339 26 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Loffelman -v- The United Kingdom 44585/98; [2002] ECHR 336; 44585/98; [2002] ECHR 336 26 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Moullet -c- France 44485/98; [2002] ECHR 338 26 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lutz -c- France 48215/99; [2002] ECHR 337; [2002] ECHR 337 26 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Leboeuf -c- France 47194/99; [2002] ECHR 335; [2002] ECHR 335 26 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Grand -c- France 50996/99; [2002] ECHR 333; [2002] ECHR 333 26 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Baillard -c- France 51575/99; [2002] ECHR 330; [2002] ECHR 330 26 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Erat And Saglam -v- Turkey 30492/96; [2002] ECHR 332; [2002] ECHR 332 26 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Haran -v- Turkey 25754/94; [2002] ECHR 334; 25754/94; [2002] ECHR 334 26 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â The Police Complaints Authority and Others -v- Regina [2002] EWCA Civ 389; [2002] UKHRR 985 26 Mar 2002 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown Police, Human Rights, Litigation Practice Simon Brown LJ said: "Given the PCA's right under section 76(7)(b) to such other information as they need for the purpose of reaching their section 76 decision, I am inclined to think that, if, after obtaining the complainant's comments upon any other witnesses' statements disclosed to him, they thought it necessary, they could require the investigation to be re-opened." Police Act 1996 76(7)(b) 80(1)(a) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (Amin) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Middleton) -v- Coroner for West Somersetshire; CA 27-Mar-2002 - Times, 18 April 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 390; [2003] QB 581 Â Campbell -v- Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd Times, 29 March 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002; [2002] EWHC 499 (QB); [2003] QB 633 27 Mar 2002 QBD The Hon Mr Justice Morland Media, Information, Human Rights The applicant sought damages for the defendant having infringed her privacy in several ways, including under the 1998 Act. The defendant argued that she had invited publicity and had misled the public as to her drug problem. A photograch had been taken as she left a drug rehabilitation group meeting. Held: The fact that she was receiving treatment for her addiction was sensitive personal information under the Data Protection Act, and had the mark and badge of confidentiality. The three requirements in the first data protection principle under section 4 of the 1998 Act were cumulative. Compensation was governed by section 13, and "damage" in sections 13(1) and 13(2)(a) meant special or financial damages not distress in the shape of injury to feelings. The defendant had shown a proper public interest in disclosing her addiction, but not the nature and occasion of her treatment. Data Protection Act 1998 4 13 Sch 3 - European Convention on Human Rights 8 10.2 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Amici -c- Italie 54282/00; [2002] ECHR 344; [2002] ECHR 344 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Oral And Others -v- Turkey 27735/95; [2002] ECHR 377; 27735/95; [2002] ECHR 377 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â D'Agostino -v- Italy 54310/00; [2002] ECHR 355; 54290/00 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Ulger -v- Turkey 28505/95; [2002] ECHR 394; 28505/95; [2002] ECHR 394 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tatangelo -c- Italie 54285/00; [2002] ECHR 391; [2002] ECHR 391 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Quartucci -v- Italy 41232/98; [2002] ECHR 381; [2002] ECHR 381 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Klamecki -v- Poland 25415/94; [2002] ECHR 364; [2002] ECHR 363 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 5-3; No violation of Art. 6-1 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Patrick Morley -v- The United Kingdom 16084/03; [2002] ECHR 853 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Birutis And Others -v- Lithuania 48115/99; 47698/99; [2002] ECHR 350; [2002] ECHR 349 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice The court considered the conviction of the applicant on the basis of anonymous statements which were not tested by examination at trial. Held: The Court criticised the means adopted by the authorities "in handling the anonymous evidence". European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Castiello -c- Italie 54313/00; [2002] ECHR 353; [2002] ECHR 352 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Trovato -c- Italie 54295/00; [2002] ECHR 393; [2002] ECHR 393 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lattanzi Et Cascia -c- Italie 44334/98; [2002] ECHR 365; [2002] ECHR 364 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Jaculli -c- Italie 54301/00; [2002] ECHR 363; [2002] ECHR 362 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Incollingo -c- Italie 54302/00; [2002] ECHR 362; [2002] ECHR 361 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â I.S. -c- Turquie 38931/97; [2002] ECHR 361; [2002] ECHR 360 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Giordano -c- Italie 54280/00; [2002] ECHR 360; [2002] ECHR 359 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dudu Calkan -c- Turquie 19660/92; [2002] ECHR 359; [2002] ECHR 358 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Domenico Chiappetta -c- Italie 54293/00; [2002] ECHR 358; [2002] ECHR 357 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Diebold -c- Italie 41740/98; [2002] ECHR 357; [2002] ECHR 356 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â D'Agostino -c- Italie 54290/00; [2002] ECHR 356 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Libertini Et Di Girolamo -c- Italie 54299/00; [2002] ECHR 367; [2002] ECHR 366 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cerasomma -c- Italie 54292/00; [2002] ECHR 354; [2002] ECHR 353 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights (French Text) European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Manera -c- Italie 54296/00; [2002] ECHR 368; [2002] ECHR 367 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Carretta -c- Italie 54309/00; [2002] ECHR 352; [2002] ECHR 351 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Caproni -c- Italie 54291/00; [2002] ECHR 351; [2002] ECHR 350 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Betti -c- Italie 54316/00; [2002] ECHR 349; [2002] ECHR 348 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Aziz Sen -c- Turquie 20155/92; [2002] ECHR 348; [2002] ECHR 347 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Antonio Nardone -c- Italie 44428/98; [2002] ECHR 347; [2002] ECHR 376 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Aniceto -c- Italie 54297/00; [2002] ECHR 346; [2002] ECHR 346 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Andreozzi -c- Italie 54288/00; [2002] ECHR 345; [2002] ECHR 345 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â A.S. -c- Turquie 27694/95; [2002] ECHR 340; [2002] ECHR 340 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Adile Kartal -c- Turquie 20144/92; [2002] ECHR 341; [2002] ECHR 341 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ahmet Ozturk -c- Turquie 20151/92; [2002] ECHR 342; [2002] ECHR 342 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Albergamo -c- Italie 44392/98; [2002] ECHR 343; [2002] ECHR 343 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Contardi -c- Italie 46970/99; [2002] ECHR 355; [2002] ECHR 354 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Radicchi -c- Italie 54284/00; [2002] ECHR 382; [2002] ECHR 382 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Xenopoulos -c- Grece 55611/00; [2002] ECHR 395; [2002] ECHR 395 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tortolani -c- Italie 54315/00; [2002] ECHR 392; [2002] ECHR 392 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tamburrini -c- Italie 54305/00; [2002] ECHR 390; [2002] ECHR 390 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sportola -c- Italie 54319/00; [2002] ECHR 389; [2002] ECHR 389 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Spatrisano -c- Italie 54303/00; [2002] ECHR 388; [2002] ECHR 388 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Soave -c- Italie 54311/00; [2002] ECHR 387; [2002] ECHR 387 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sergio Ferrari -c- Italie 54287/00; [2002] ECHR 386 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sciarrotta -c- Italie 40151/98; [2002] ECHR 385; [2002] ECHR 385 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Leonardi -c- Italie 54278/00; [2002] ECHR 366; [2002] ECHR 365 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rocco Zullo -c- Italie 54317/00; [2002] ECHR 383; [2002] ECHR 383 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Quacquarelli -c- Italie 54314/00; [2002] ECHR 380; [2002] ECHR 380 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mastromauro S.R.L. -c- Italie 47479/99; [2002] ECHR 373; [2002] ECHR 372 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Manna -c- Italie 54312/00; [2002] ECHR 369; [2002] ECHR 368 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mario Fiore -c- Italie 54294/00; [2002] ECHR 370; [2002] ECHR 369 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marrama -c- Italie 44359/98; [2002] ECHR 371; [2002] ECHR 370 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sabetta -c- Italie 54298/00; [2002] ECHR 384; [2002] ECHR 384 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Masia -c- Italie 54306/00; [2002] ECHR 372; [2002] ECHR 371 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Prete -c- Italie 54279/00; [2002] ECHR 379; [2002] ECHR 379 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mehmet Celebi -c- Turquie 20140/92; [2002] ECHR 374; [2002] ECHR 373 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mehmet Ozen -c- Turquie 20152/92; [2002] ECHR 375; [2002] ECHR 374 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mignanelli -c- Italie 54308/00; [2002] ECHR 376; [2002] ECHR 375 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Picano -c- Italie 54318/00; [2002] ECHR 378; [2002] ECHR 378 28 Mar 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Volkwein -c- Allemagne 45181/99; [2002] ECHR 398; [2002] ECHR 398 4 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Baptista Do Rosario -c- Portugal 46772/99; [2002] ECHR 396; [2002] ECHR 396 4 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marques Jorge Ribeiro -c- Portugal 49018/99; [2002] ECHR 397; [2002] ECHR 397 4 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sergejs Kapitonovs -v- Latvia 16999/02; [2007] ECHR 371 5 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Yazar, Karatas, Aksoy And The People's Labour Party Hep -v- Turkey 22723/93; [2002] ECHR 408 9 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Yazar And Others -v- Turkey 22725/93; [2002] ECHR 408; 22723/93; 22724/93 9 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Cisse -v- France 51346/99; [2002] ECHR 400; [2002] ECHR 400 9 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Podkolzina -v- Latvia 46726/99; [2002] ECHR 405; [2002] ECHR 405 9 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mehmet Ozcan -c- Turquie 29856/96; [2002] ECHR 404; [2002] ECHR 404 9 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marcel -c- France 44791/98; [2002] ECHR 403 9 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Z.Y. -c- Turquie 27532/95; [2002] ECHR 409; [2002] ECHR 409 9 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Mangualde Pinto -v- France; ECHR 9-Apr-2002 - 43491/98; [2002] ECHR 402 Â Anghelescu -c- Roumanie 29411/95; [2002] ECHR 399; [2002] ECHR 399 9 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â T A -v- Turkey 26307/95; [2004] ECHR 147; [2002] ECHR 406; [2003] ECHR 233; 26307/95; 26307/95; [2002] ECHR 406; [2004] ECHR 149; [2003] ECHR 233 9 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Togcu -v- Turkey 27601/95; [2002] ECHR 407; 27601/95; 27601/95; [2005] ECHR 349; [2002] ECHR 407; [2005] ECHR 349 9 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Erdos -v- Hungary 38937/97; [2002] ECHR 401; 38937/97; 38937/97; [2002] ECHR 401 9 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Smokovitis And Others -v- Greece 46356/99; [2002] ECHR 415; 46356/99; 46356/99; [2002] ECHR 416 11 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Angelopoulos -v- Greece 49215/99; [2002] ECHR 411; 49215/99; 49215/99; [2002] ECHR 411 11 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mercuri -v- Italy 47247/99; [2002] ECHR 414 11 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Aepi S.A. -c- Grece 48679/99; [2002] ECHR 410; [2002] ECHR 410; [2010] ECHR 2237 11 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lallement -c- France 46044/99; [2002] ECHR 413; [2003] ECHR 281; [2002] ECHR 413; [2003] ECHR 281; [2010] ECHR 1430 11 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hatzitakis -c- Grece 48392/99; [2002] ECHR 412; [2002] ECHR 412 11 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sakellaropoulos -v- Greece 46806/99; [2002] ECHR 414; [2002] ECHR 415 11 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Johannes Cornelius Vervuren -v- Her Majesty's Advocate [2002] ScotCS 109 12 Apr 2002 HCJ Lady Paton Scotland, Crime, Extradition, Human Rights The applicant had been extradited from Portugal. He said that the procedures in Portugal had infringed his human rights in that he had not had proper representation nor translation, and that his consent to extradition had been under protest as to this. Held: The Sinclair case appeared to remain binding. The court could not look behind apparently valid extradition proceedings in a friendly state. If Sinclair was not good law still, the Horseferry Magistrates Court case did not assist the appellant either. The defects identified were not sufficient to raise a need to investigate the behaviour of the Portuguese courts. There was no general pro-active duty on the British courts to investigate the compliance with Human Rights law of a foreign court. 1 Cites [ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kariharan and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 615; [2003] Imm AR 163; [2003] QB 933; [2002] INLR 383; [2002] 3 WLR 1783 15 Apr 2002 CA Auld, Sedley, Arden LJJ Immigration, Human Rights There is a right of appeal against removal directions under section 65 of the 1999 Act on the ground that removal would be in breach of a person's human rights. Auld LJ was not impressed by an argument that a restrictive interpretation was necessary to prevent abuse. On the one hand a last-minute challenge would not necessarily be abusive: there might genuinely have been changes of circumstance with the passage of time. And on the other, "If and to the extent that such an interpretation is open to abuse by repetitive last-minute claims, it seems to me that Parliament must be taken to have had that possible outcome in mind in including the anti-abuse and one-stop provisions in the 1999 Act . . The fact that those provisions may not provide absolute protection against abuse . . is no basis for a contrary construction, given the importance of the human rights in play." Sedley LJ agreed: "It is not this court's job to fill gaps perceived by one party to litigation in Parliament's provision, especially when the mechanism is not to read the abuse provisions generously but to constrict the antecedent right to which they relate." European Convention on Human Rights - Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â S.A. Dangeville -v- France 36677/97; [2002] ECHR 417; [2002] ECHR 419 16 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ouendeno -v- France 39996/98; 39996/98; [2002] ECHR 418 16 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] Â Goc -v- Poland 48001/99; [2002] ECHR 416; [2002] ECHR 417 16 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Seguin -v- France 42400/98; [2002] ECHR 420 16 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Stes Colas Est And Others -v- France 37971/97; [2002] ECHR 418; [2002] ECHR 421 16 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Williams -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Office Times, 01 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 498; [2002] 1 WLR 2264; [2002] 4 All ER 872 17 Apr 2002 CA Lord Phillips Master of the Rolls, Judge LJ Prisons, Human Rights The applicant was a post-tariff discretionary life prisoner, applying for a change in his security classification. He sought disclosure of his security report which was denied by the respondent. He alleged a breach of his human rights. Held. The punitive part of the sentence was complete. The earlier panel had advised his reclassification from security risk A, but that had not been followed. He was required to demonstrate positive reasons for re-classification, but was not told what circumstances justified maintenance of his classification. The committee which considered his possible release served a different purpose to one which considered his classification. Full disclosure was ordered. The Parole Board is concerned with assessing risk in the context of someone who is lawfully released and subject to continuing monitoring and control. Furthermore, there are incentives to behave, since in the event of non-compliance the licence is revocable. European Convention on Human Rights Art 5 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Kurdistan Workers' Party and Others, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 644 (Admin) 17 Apr 2002 Admn Human Rights, Crime [ Bailii ] Â Malama -v- Greece 43622/98; [2001] ECHR 171; [2002] ECHR 421; [2001] ECHR 174; [2002] ECHR 425 18 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Commissioners of Customs and Excise -v- A; A -v- A Times, 09 May 2002 18 Apr 2002 FD Mr Justice Munby Customs and Excise, Family, Human Rights The husband had been convicted of trafficking in cannabis, and an order had been made confiscating his assets. His wife had already petitioned for divorce and begun ancillary relief proceedings. She claimed that her interest in the house under section 24 of the Act was protected. The receiver sought sale of the house to recover the sum ordered. Held: The section under the 1994 Act did protect the interest of the wife. Her right to occupy the house under the 1973 Act created an interest over and above her financial interest, and that interest was protected by section 31(4). There had to be a right and that right had to be 'in' the property. She claimed a similar protection under the Human Rights Act. Despite the risk of the husband being unable to satisfy the confiscation order, and thus be returned to prison, the proper order in this case was to vest the entire house in the wife's name. Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24 - Drug Trafficking Act 1994 31(4) 62(5)(a) 62(3) - European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 Pro 1 Â Fernandes -v- Portugal 47459/99; [2002] ECHR 423 18 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Examiliotis -c- Grece 52538/99; [2002] ECHR 419; [2002] ECHR 422 18 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Aronica -v- Germany [2002] ECHR 859; 72032/01 18 Apr 2002 ECHR Caflisch P Human Rights, Extradition (Decision as to admissibility) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Ouzounis Et Autres -c- Grece 49144/99; [2002] ECHR 422; [2002] ECHR 426 18 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â KB and Others, Regina (on the Applications of) -v- Mental Health Review Tribunal [2002] EWHC 639 (Admin); [2003] EWHC 193 (Admn); [2004] 1 QB 936 23 Apr 2002 Admn Stanley Burnton J Health, Human Rights Damages were claimed by three mental health patients whose rights under Article 5(4) had been infringed because of inordinate delay in processing their claims to mental health review tribunals. Held: Article 5.5 did not make an award of damages mandatory. It was complied with provided that it was possible to make an application for compensation; it did not preclude the Contracting States from making the award of compensation conditional upon proof that procedural delay had resulted in damage. Should compensation be awarded where delay has caused frustration and distress? "I conclude that there is no "clear and constant jurisprudence" of the European Court on the recoverability of damages for distress under Article 5.5 in the absence of deprivation of liberty. There are two principles applied by the Court: that damages are not recoverable in the absence of deprivation of liberty, and that damages are recoverable for distress which may be inferred from the facts of the case. It follows that this Court must itself determine the principles it is to apply." Having regard for the vulnerability of detained mental health patients: "Thus, even in the case of mentally ill claimants, not every feeling of frustration and distress will justify an award of damages. The frustration and distress must be significant: of such intensity that it would in itself justify an award of compensation for non-pecuniary damages. In my judgment, an important touchstone of that intensity in cases such as the present will be that the hospital staff considered it to be sufficiently relevant to the mental state of the patient to warrant its mention in the clinical notes." European Convention on Human Rights 5.4 5.5 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Adlard and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Secretarty of State for Transport, Local Government & Regions and others [2002] 1 WLR 2515; [2002] EWCA Civ 614 24 Apr 2002 CA Laws, Arden LJJ Planning, Human Rights It was argued that the Secretary of State should have called in a planning application so as to avoid the risk of the local planning authority acting incompatibly with article 6. Held: The court considered the obligations of the Secretary of State: "The Secretary of State's obligation under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is not himself to act incompatibly with a Convention right; he is not obliged to ensure that other public authorities themselves act compatibly." 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Aggregate Industries UK Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- English Nature and and Another [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin); [2003] Env LR 3 24 Apr 2002 Admn Forbes J Environment, Human Rights The claimant challenged English Nature's confirmation of a notice that their land was a site of special scientific interest. The land comprised some 600 acres in Hampshire which had planning permission for mineral extraction known as "Bramshill". The basis of the challenge was that: - (1) the decision breached the claimant's right to a fair trial under ECHR Article 6; (2) the decision breached the claimant's legitimate expectations; and (3) there was no justifiable basis for the decision. In the alternative, the claimant sought a declaration that section 28 of the 1981 Act was incompatible with its Article 6 rights. Held: The court rejected all three heads of challenge, and dismissed the application for a declaration of incompatibility. The court decided the Article 6 point on Alconbury principles, namely that whilst English Nature did not have a sufficient appearance of independence and impartiality, there were sufficient safeguards built in to its decision making process which, when added to the court's powers of judicial review rendered the process Article 6 compliant, as the court possessed "full jurisdiction" to deal with the case 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Oates Times, 20 May 2002; Gazette, 30 May 2002 25 Apr 2002 CACD Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice McKinnon and Mr Justice Pool Legal Aid, Human Rights The applicant had sought and been refused legal aid to support legal representation at a full oral hearing on her renewed application for leave to appeal against her conviction. She argued that the refusal of legal aid denied her human rights. Held: The legal aid system assisted her at trial, on advice with regard to an appeal, and on the first written application for leave to appeal. Where that application had been refused, there was nothing in human rights law to require legal aid to be extended further. Criminal Appeal Act 1968 31 - European Convention on Human Rights 6.3(c) Â Â Pretty -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 29-Apr-2002 - 2346/02; (2002) 35 EHRR 1; [2002] ECHR 423 Â Â English -v- Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note); CA 30-Apr-2002 - Times, 10 May 2002; Gazette, 30 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 605; [2002] 1 WLR 2409; [2002] 3 All ER 385; [2003] IRLR 710 Â Kleuver v- -Norway 45837/99 30 Apr 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Extradition The mother resisted extradition to face a drug trafficking charge. She complained that she would be separated from her child on its birth. Held: Her claim failed. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers Â Â Farrakhan, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; CA 30-Apr-2002 - Gazette, 30 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 606; [2002] 3 WLR 481; [2002] QB 1391 Â Jego-Quere et Cie SA -v- Commission of the European Communities Times, 31 May 2002; T-177/01; [2002] EUECJ T-177/01; T-177/01 3 May 2002 ECFI B. Vesterdorf, President and Judges K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi, N. J. Forwood and H. Legal European, Human Rights The applicant complained that he had been individually affect by a European Instrument. The commission objected that he did not have sufficient standing to challenge the instrument. Held: The former law that an individual had to be affected in some particular way as compared with others, is no longer correct. An individual now has standing where a measure affected him in law definitely and immediately and so as to restrict his rights. Access to justice is a fundamental right, and the former rule denied such access. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - EC Treaty 230(4) 1 Cites [ Europa ] - [ Bailii ] Â (Un-named) 47891/99 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Burdov -v- Russia 59498/00; [2002] ECHR 428; [2002] ECHR 432 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dede And Others -v- Turkey 32981/96; [2002] ECHR 429; 32981/96; [2002] ECHR 434 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â (Un-named) 47891/99; [2002] ECHR 433; [2002] ECHR 437 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cases Of Ribes -v- France 50586/99; [2002] ECHR 433; 41946/98 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Amato Del Re -v- Italy 44968/98; [2002] ECHR 424; [2002] ECHR 428 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â VL And Others -v- Italy 44864/98; [2002] ECHR 435; [2002] ECHR 439 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fusco -v- Italy 42609/98; [2002] ECHR 430; [2002] ECHR 435 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fusco -v- Italy 42609/98; 42609/98 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Amato Del Re -v- Italy 44968/98 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Dede And Others -v- Turkey 32981/96; 32981/96 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Burdov -v- Russia 59498/00 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Mcvicar -v- The United Kingdom 46311/99; [2002] ECHR 431; (2002) 35 EHRR 22; [2002] ECHR 436 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Defamation, Costs It was not inconsistent with article 6 to expect both claimants and defendants in defamation proceedings to act in person. European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â At.M. -c- Italie 56084/00; [2002] ECHR 426; [2002] ECHR 430 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Strangi -c- Italie 54286/00; [2002] ECHR 434; [2002] ECHR 438 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â S Ribes -c- France 41946/98; [2002] ECHR 432 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Barbara Ferrari -c- Italie 35795/97; [2002] ECHR 427; [2002] ECHR 431 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â VL And Others -v- Italy 44864/98 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Arrivabene -c- Italie 35797/97; [2002] ECHR 425; [2002] ECHR 429 7 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gayevskaya -v- Ukraine 9165/05; [2008] ECHR 694 8 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Cotter and Others Times, 29 May 2002; Gazette, 20 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 1033; [2002] 2 Cr App R 29 10 May 2002 CACD Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Goldring and Judge Mettyear Crime, Human Rights The defendants appealed convictions for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. They said that the fact that an investigation followed a false allegation was insufficient to found a complaint, and that the extent of the crime was so unclear as to infringe the human right to a fair trial. Held: The crime of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice was defined clearly in the Northern Ireland case of Bailey. That case set the bounds of justice to include as a part of the definition of a course of justice, a process of investigation. The definition was sufficiently clear not to infringe his human rights. European Convention on Human Rights 7 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Felix Augustus Durity -v- The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2002] UKPC 20; Appeal No 52 0f 2000 13 May 2002 PC Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Scott of Foscote Crime, Commonwealth, Constitutional, Limitation, Human Rights PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The applicant had been a magistrate, and challenged the application of a limitation period to his claim. He had been wrongfully suspended from his work, and the proceedings had been delayed and protracted. No effective progress having been made, he sought to challenge the original suspension. The court refused to hear the application as debarred by limitation. He said that the limitation period should have no application in a case involving a constitutional challenge and infringement of his human rights. Held: Where the state became liable in tort, it was appropriate that limitation defences available to tortfeasors should also be available to the state, but the considerations on constitutional proceedings are different, and the limitation period did not apply. As a magistrate, making a decision in good faith, even if incorrectly, to allow that mistake to be charged as misconduct was to impugn the independence of the judiciary. The failure to pursue the case over a long period of time, with the magistrate suspended amounted to an abuse of power. [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] Â Fawdry & Co (A Firm) -v- Murfitt [2002] EWCA Civ 643; [2003] QB 104 14 May 2002 CA Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Sedley And Lady Justice Hale Litigation Practice, Human Rights The judge at first instance who was ticketed to sit as a judge in the Technology and Construction Court, had been asked to sit as a judge of the High Court to take this case. The appellant said she was acting outside her powers. Held: The court considered the comon law doctrine of de facto officers. She was in fact not a judge of the High Court but had acted in good faith, and the parties had accepted her jurisdiction. The parties had received a fair trial before a lawfully constituted tribunal. European Convention on Human Rights 6(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Georgiadis -v- Cyprus 50516/99; 50516/99 14 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Meulendijks -v- The Netherlands 34549/97 14 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Altan -v- Turkey 32985/96; [2002] ECHR 436; [2002] ECHR 440 14 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Semse Onen -v- Turkey 22876/93; [2002] ECHR 441; 22876/93; [2002] ECHR 445 14 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection joined to merits and rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 2 in respect of killing of applicant 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji et Zerouki -v- France 48205/99; [2002] ECHR 437; 48209/99; [2002] ECHR 441; 48205/99; 48207/99 14 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights (French Text) In 1962 France and Algeria had signed a statement of principle on cultural co-operation which provided inter alia for French children residing in Algeria, including those having dual French and Algerian nationality under French law, to receive formal education in French state schools, a number of which were thus established in Algerian territory. Subsequently the Algerian government informed the French authorities that children of Algerian nationality (including those with dual French and Algerian nationality, since Algerian law did not recognise their dual nationality) would no longer be able to enrol in such schools. The applicants complained as against France that this constituted a breach of their children's rights under the Convention. Held. The children did not fall under the jurisdiction of France within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. After retferring to Bankovic: "The facts complained of in this case, which the applicants contend constitute a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention and of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, are thus the result of a decision taken unilaterally by Algeria. [Notwithstanding / whatever] the legality of that decision in the light of international law, it in effect constitutes a refusal on the part of Algeria to comply with the agreement of 19 March 1962. The French authorities, who exercised 'jurisdiction' in Algerian territory in this case solely on the basis of that agreement, could only draw conclusions from that refusal as regards the provision of formal education to children in the same situation as the applicants' children. In short, the facts complained of were caused by a decision attributable to Algeria, adopted by it with no possibility of appeal on its own territory and not open to any review by France. In other words, in the particular circumstances at issue here, France cannot be held responsible for those facts . ." European Convention on Human Rights - European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zehnalova and Zehnal -v- Czech Republic Unreported, 14 May 2002 14 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights The applicants were husband and wife and the wife was physically handicapped. They complained that their Article 8 rights were infringed because, in breach of Czech law, the authorities had failed to install facilities that would enable her to gain access to public buildings. Held: The claim failed. "The Court is of the opinion that Article 8 of the Convention cannot apply as a general rule and whenever the everyday life of the female applicant is concerned, but only in exceptional cases where a lack of access to public buildings and those open to the public would prevent the female applicant from leading her life so that her right to personal development and her right to make and maintain relations with other human beings and the outside world are in question (Pretty). In a case like that, a positive obligation for the state could be established to ensure access to the buildings mentioned. Now, in the case in point, the rights invoked are too wide and indeterminate, as the applicants have failed to be specific about the alleged obstacles and to give convincing proof of an attack on their private lives. According to the Court, the female applicant has not managed to demonstrate the special link between the inaccessibility of the institutions mentioned and the particular needs concerned with her private life". European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Meulendijks -v- The Netherlands 34549/97; [2002] ECHR 439; [2002] ECHR 443; [2010] ECHR 1869 14 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Georgiadis -v- Cyprus 50516/99; [2002] ECHR 438; 50516/99; [2002] ECHR 442 14 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Perhirin Et 29 Autres -c- France 44081/98; [2002] ECHR 440; [2003] ECHR 155; [2002] ECHR 444; [2003] ECHR 155 14 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (C) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 24 May 2002; Gazette, 20 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 647 15 May 2002 CA Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Health, Human Rights A mental health review tribunal had recommended the conditional release of the applicant, a restricted patient in a high security hospital. A community social worker's report was only later made available to the tribunal. Held: There was no need for the matter to go to the Secretary of State for him to order a fresh referral to the tribunal. The conditional discharge meant that the tribunal remained seised of the case and could recall its decision of its own motion. The case of Campbell was not engaged. Mental Health Act 1983 71 73 - European Convention on Human Rights 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Regina (IH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Times, 24 May 2002; Gazette, 20 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 646; [2003] QB 320 15 May 2002 CA Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Health, Human Rights The applicant was a restricted mental patient. His conditional release had been ordered, but required a consultant psychiatrist to be found who would agree to supervise him. None such could be found, and his detention continued. After two years he contended that his continued detention infringed his human rights. Held: Campbell's case required s73 to operate in two stages. The decision was made for a release, subject to conditions. The second stage was met once those arrangements were in place, and at that point the conditional release was ordered. Article 5.4 required a speedy decision, and there was a clear potential conflict. To avoid that conflict Campbell might no longer be followed. Instead, a provisional decision directing a conditional discharge should be made, but that direction should be deferred to allow for arrangements for psychiatric treatment in the community. The health authority was under a duty to provide assistance. If no such help was forthcoming, the tribunal might then be obliged to decide to continue the detention. That would avoid incompatibility. Mental Health Act 1983 73 117 - European Convention on Human Rights 3 5.4 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd; HL 16-May-2002 - Times, 20 May 2002; Gazette, 20 June 2002; [2002] UKHL 21; [2002] 2 WLR 1299; [2003] 1 AC 563; 74 TC 511; [2002] STC 786; [2002] BTC 223; [2002] 3 All ER 1; [2002] HRLR 42; [2002] NPC 70; [2002] STI 806; 4 ITL Rep 809 Â F Santos Lda -v- Portugal 49020/99; [2002] ECHR 444; [2002] ECHR 448 16 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Camara Pestana -c- Portugal 47460/99; [2002] ECHR 442; [2002] ECHR 446 16 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â D G -v- Ireland 39474/98; [2002] ECHR 443; 39474/98; 39474/98; [2002] ECHR 447 16 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 3; No separate issue under Art. 8 in respect of lawfulness of detention; No violation of Art. 8 in respect of other complaints; No separate issue under Art. 14+5-1 in respect of situation vis-Ã -vis other minors; No violation of Art. 14+5-1 in respect of other complaints; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Goth -c- France 53613/99; [2002] ECHR 445; [2002] ECHR 449 16 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Karatas Et Sari -c- France 38396/97; [2002] ECHR 446; [2002] ECHR 450 16 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Livanos -c- Grece 53051/99; [2002] ECHR 447; [2002] ECHR 451 16 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sib-Sociedade Imobiliaria Da Benedita LDA -v- Portugal 49118/99; [2002] ECHR 453 16 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Nuvoli -c- Italie 41424/98; [2002] ECHR 448; [2002] ECHR 452 16 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sib - Sociedade Imobiliaria Da Benedita, Lda -c- Portugal 49118/99; [2002] ECHR 449 16 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Adlard and Others, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Fulham Stadium Ltd Times, 31 May 2002; Gazette, 27 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 671 17 May 2002 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Dyson Planning, Human Rights The landowners sought permission to redevelop their football stadium. The authority were minded to grant the permission, and after an enquiry, permission was granted, but in the meantime another permission was proposed for a larger stadium. This was not called in, depriving the applicants of their opportunity to make their objections, and did not give reasons for not calling it in. The applicants sought the right to make oral representations. Held: The objector's argument came close to suggesting that any objector's argument must be heard by a public enquiry. Planning decisions are ones of expediency. Where the decision depended upon argument, rather than assessment of facts, the need for oral hearings was much reduced. The general power to determine planning applications is with local authorities, and the secretary's interventions are appropriate to achieve coherence and consistency. Appeal dismissed. Town and Country Planning Act 1990 77 - European Convention on Human Rights 6(1) 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Barlcays Bank Plc -v- Alcorn [2002] EWCA Civ 817 17 May 2002 CA Chadwick LJ Land, Litigation Practice, Human Rights Renewed application for leave to appeal. Access to Justice Act 1999 55 - European Convention on Human Rights 8 A1 FP - Administration of Justice Act 1970 36 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Hughes and Another -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise etc [2003] 1 WLR 177; Times, 31 May 2002; Gazette, 27 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 670; [2002] 4 All ER 633 20 May 2002 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Laws and Lady Justice Arden Customs and Excise, Costs, Human Rights Nicholas Hughes was charged with VAT fraud. Nicholas was the joint owner of a company with his brother Timothy, each holding 50% of the shares. Timothy was never charged. A restraint and receivership order was made against Nicholas, preventing the company from dealing in any way with its assets. Nicholas was acquitted but the assets of the company were used to meet the receiver's costs and expenses. In each case the Commissioners had been appointed receivers of the applicant's assets pending a decision in parallel criminal proceedings on a confiscation order. The final orders were not made, and the Commissioners appealed orders denying them their costs from the assets they had realised. Held: Save as provided otherwise, statutory receivers were to be treated precisely as their common-law counterparts. The regime of restraint and receivership orders was not contrary to the applicants' human rights. Acquitted defendants are not, save exceptionally, entitled to compensation for being deprived of their liberty while on remand, and it was no more unfair that they should be uncompensated for any adverse effects that restraint and receivership orders might have had upon their assets. The introduction of CPR 69.7 had made a significant change in law and practice for receivers as regards remuneration. Simon Brown LJ said: "I entirely accept that an acquitted (or indeed unconvicted) defendant must for these purposes be treated as an innocent person . . I cannot accept, however, that for this reason it must be regarded as disproportionate, still less arbitrary (another contention advanced by the respondents), to leave the defendant, against whom restraint and receivership orders have been made, uncompensated for such loss as they may have caused him - unless, of course, by establishing 'some serious fault' on the prosecutor's part he can bring himself within the strict requirements of section 89. It is common ground that acquitted defendants are not, save in the most exceptional circumstances, entitled to compensation for being deprived of their liberty whilst on remand or indeed for any other heads of loss suffered through being prosecuted. In my judgment it is no more unfair, disproportionate or arbitrary that they should be uncompensated too for any adverse effects that restraint and receivership orders may have had upon their assets." Supreme Court Act 1981 31 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 Part VI - European Convention on Human Rights First Protocol - Civil Procedure Rules 69.7 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Vasiliu -c- Roumanie 29407/95; [2002] ECHR 455; [2002] ECHR 459 21 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Jokela -v- Finland; ECHR 21-May-2002 - 45, ECHR 2002-IV; 28856/95; [2002] ECHR 452; [2002] ECHR 456; [2003] 37 EHRR 26 Â Hodos Et Autres -c- Roumanie 29968/96; [2002] ECHR 451; [2002] ECHR 455 21 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Surpaceanu -c- Roumanie 32260/96; [2002] ECHR 454; [2002] ECHR 458 21 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Downie -v- The United Kingdom 40161/98; [2002] ECHR 450; [2002] ECHR 454 21 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Benefits Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) The applicant complained that British Social Security legislation discriminated against him on grounds of sex, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with both Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant's wife had died, leaving him with young children. Had he been a widow, he could have claimed several benefits, including Widow's Payment and Widowed Mother's Allowance, which were not means tested and Widows' Benefit. The government reached a friendly settlement paying him damages and costs European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Peltier -c- France 32872/96; [2002] ECHR 453; [2002] ECHR 457 21 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Annette Carson) -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Times, 24 May 2002; Gazette, 27 June 2002; [2002] EWHC 978 (Admin); [2002] 3 All ER 994 22 May 2002 Admn Mr Justice Stanley Burnton Human Rights, Benefits The claimant received a UK state pension. She lived in South Africa, and challenged the exclusion of foreign resident pensioners from the annual uprating of pension benefits. She asserted that the state pension, or its uprating, were pecuniary rights, and were therefore possessions within the Convention. Held: It was difficult to distinguish the appellant's case from the position in Corner, which had already been rejected in the European Court of Human Rights. The decision to exclude such pensioners from the increase in benefits was a political decision, being an allocation of resources affecting foreign relations. It was not a judicial decision. As to what constituted discrimination: "[I]s the basis for the treatment of the complainant as against the chosen comparators based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language ….. or other status within the meaning of Art. 14?" European Convention on Human Rights 14 First Protocol Art 1 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham And Others, ex parte Burkett and Another; HL 23-May-2002 - Times, 24 May 2002; Gazette, 04 July 2002; [2002] UKHL 23; [2002] 1 WLR 1593; [2002] 3 All ER 97 Â Szarapo -v- Poland 40835/98; [2002] ECHR 460; [2002] ECHR 464 23 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ahmet Onel -c- Turquie 30448/96; [2002] ECHR 456; [2002] ECHR 460 23 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Haci Bayram Ozel -c- Turquie 30447/96; [2002] ECHR 457; [2002] ECHR 462 23 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Haci Osman Ozel -c- Turquie 31964/96; [2002] ECHR 458; [2002] ECHR 461 23 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mehmet Onel -c- Turquie 30948/96; [2002] ECHR 459; [2002] ECHR 463 23 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Davis and Another -v- Balfour Kilpatrick Ltd and others [2002] EWCA Civ 736 23 May 2002 CA Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Tuckey And Mr Justice Jackson Health and Safety, Personal Injury, Human Rights The claimants sought damages for sickness they claimed arose from exposure to radiation when erecting radio transmitter masts. The risk had been recognised, and a safety assessment undertaken and adjustments made to the transmitter power before work began, to reduce the levels below those recommended by the NRPB. The judge did not find evidence of exposure to excess levels, but failed to make a finding as to causation. He dismissed the claim. Held: There was no obligation on a judge to make a finding on every averment. Some common sense must be applied. There were no grounds for challenging the judge's assessment of the evidence. Riggers on transmission masts work in an environment where they are exposed to unknown dangers, because scientific knowledge is incomplete. Human rights issues were raised because one of the operators of the mast was a public body, the BBC. Nevertheless this point had arisen only on appeal, and the judge could not be criticised for failing to develop creative points. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Temur Onel -c- Turquie 30446/96; [2002] ECHR 461; [2002] ECHR 465 23 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Szarapo -v- Poland 40835/98; 40835/98 23 May 2002 ECHR Mr G. RESS, President, Mr I. CABRAL BARRETO, Mr J. MAKARCZYK, Mr P. KURIS, Mr B. ZUPANCIC, Mr J. HEDIGAN, Mr K. TRAJA, judges, and Mr V. BERGER Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award The parties had been involved in an application for a declaration of paternity and maintenance. They began in 1980. Poland became a convention signatory in 1993. The proceedings were concluded in 2000. Held: The court could only look at the time period after Poland became a signatory. Nevertheless the time taken by the proceedings was unreasonable, and a breach of the parties' rights. Though both parties had undoubtedly suffered great stress and inconvenience over the years, damages would be limited to 6,500 Euros. European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 Â Somerset County Council -v- Isaacs [2002] EWHC 1014 (Admin); [2002] EWHC 1088 24 May 2002 Admn Housing, Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gronus -v- Poland 29695/96 28 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Gronus -v- Poland 29695/96; [2002] ECHR 463; 29695/96; [2002] ECHR 467 28 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â McShane -v- The United Kingdom Times, 03 June 2002; 43290/98; [2002] ECHR 465; [2002] ECHR 469; (2002) 35 EHRR 593 28 May 2002 ECHR M. Pellonpää, President, and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, A. Pastor Ridruejo, J. Makarczyk, V. Stráznická, R. Maruste and S. Pavlovschi Section Registrar M. O’Boyle Human Rights, Coroners Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 2; No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 14; No violation of Art. 13; Failure to comply with obligations under Article 34 The deceased died during a riot in Northern Ireland. He was under a hoarding run over by an armoured vehicle. Six years later an inquest had still not been held, civil proceedings remained pending, and an investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary found no basis for action. Held: The Convention required by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force. The failure to hold a proper inquiry into the death, was an infringement of the right to life under the Convention. The police officers investigating the incident were not independent of the officers implicated in the incident. There was however, no evidence which would entitle a conclusion that any deaths caused by the security services involved the unlawful or excessive use of force by members of the security forces, save where convictions had followed. The police had also in this case improperly put pressure on the applicant's legal representatives with regard to evidence to be put before the court. European Convention on Human Rights 2 34 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Beyeler -v- Italy [2002] ECHR 462; 33202/96 28 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Kingsley -v- The United Kingdom (No 2) Times, 04 June 2002; (2002) 35 EHRR 177; 35605/97; [2002] ECHR 464; [2002] ECHR 468; (2002) 35 EHRR 10 28 May 2002 ECHR Wildhaber, Rozakis, Costa, Ress, Sir Nicolas Bratza, Ridruejo, Jorundsson, Bonello, Makarczyk, Turmen, Straznicka, Lorenzen, Fischbach, Casadevall, Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Levits, Kovler, Boer-Buquicchio Human Rights, Damages The finding that a party had been denied a fair trial may of itself be sufficient compensation. The applicant had been excluded from management of licensed casinos. The appeal board had been found to have given the appearance of bias against him. "The Court recalls that it is well established that the principle underlying the provision of just satisfaction for a breach of Article 6 is that the applicant should as far as possible be put in the position he would have enjoyed had the proceedings complied with the Convention's requirements. The Court will award monetary compensation under Article 41 only where it is satisfied that the loss or damage complained of was actually caused by the violation it has found, since the State cannot be required to pay damages in respect of losses for which it is not responsible." Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings European Convention on Human Rights 4.1 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Stafford -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 28-May-2002 - Times, 31 May 2002; 46295/99; ECHR 2--2-iv; [2002] 35 EHRR 1121; [2002] ECHR 466; [2002] ECHR 470; [2002] Crim LR 828; [2002] Po LR 181; [2002] 35 EHRR 32; 13 BHRC 260 Â Matthews -v- Ministry of Defence Times, 31 May 2002; Gazette, 04 July 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 773 29 May 2002 CA Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Mummery and Lady Justice Hale Personal Injury, Armed Forces, Human Rights The Ministry appealed a finding that the Act, which deprived the right of a Crown employee to sue for personal injuries, was an infringement of his human rights. Held: The restriction imposed by the section was not a procedural section, but a substantive one which delimited the rights and liabilities arising under civil law. Accordingly, human right slaw did not apply. The Commission on human rights was wrong to suggest that such rights might be affected. Crown Proceedings Act 1947 10 - European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Wim Harry Gerard Maronier -v- Bryan Larmer Times, 13 June 2002; Gazette, 11 July 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 774; [2003] QB 620 29 May 2002 CA Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Clarke Human Rights, Jurisdiction The defendant had been a dentist in the Netherlands. An action for damages was begun against him, but then stayed. Judgment was later entered in the Netherlands after he had moved to the UK, and of which he was ignorant. There was no subsisting right of appeal. The claimant sought to enforce the judgement here. Held: The court could refuse to enforce a judgement obtained unfairly. The Brussels convention was intended to simplify the enforcement of judgements, and that would be frustrated by the courts of one country examining whether the procedures of another complied with the Human Rights Convention. Courts should only do so in exceptional circumstances, but there was a distinction between a decision on the facts and a procedure which operated in breach of the right to a fair trial. The Brussels Convention itself (art 27.2) recognised the need for a fair trial. The case had been re-activated after twelve years with no further notification. The judgement would not be enforced since the defendant had been denied his right to a fair trial. European Convention on Human Rights 6 - Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 - Brussels Convention Art 27.2 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â W F -v- Austria 38275/97 30 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P7-4; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings Â Regina (Noorkoiv) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Times, 31 May 2002; Gazette, 04 July 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 3284; [2002] EWCA Civ 770; [2002] ACD 66; [2002] 4 All ER 515; [2002] HRLR 36 30 May 2002 CA Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Buxton Human Rights, Prisons The claimant was a prisoner. He became entitled to be considered for release on parole, but was not released because the Parole Board had not made a decision. Held: The system for consideration of the release of discretionary and life prisoners infringed the human rights of such prisoners, insofar as the consideration of their release delayed the release. The lack of resources was insufficient as an excuse. Delay was part of the board's scheme for consideration of life sentence prisoners. The hearing always took place after the end of the tariff period: cases were heard at the end of the next quarter. Article 5(4) requires a review by the Board of whether the prisoner should continue to be detained once the tariff period has expired, and therefore requires a hearing at such a time that, whenever possible, those no longer considered dangerous can be released on or very shortly after the expiry date. "Article 5(1) is not relevant because the justification for the detention of a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment (whether discretionary or automatic or mandatory) is that sentence and not the fixing of the tariff period." Although the required causal connection between the conviction and the deprivation of liberty might eventually come to be broken so as to give rise to a breach of Article 5(1), that would be so only very exceptionally and "mere delay in Article 5(4) proceedings, even after the tariff expiry date, would not . . break the causal link." European Convention on Human Rights 5.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â W F -v- Austria 38275/97; [2002] ECHR 472; 38275/97; [2002] ECHR 476 30 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P7-4; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Martos Mellado Ribeiro -v- Portugal 47584/99; [2002] ECHR 470; 47584/99; [2002] ECHR 474 30 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Coelho -c- Portugal 48752/99; [2002] ECHR 469; [2002] ECHR 473 30 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Viana Montenegro Carneiro -c- Portugal 48526/99; [2002] ECHR 471; [2002] ECHR 475 30 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Azevedo Moreira -c- Portugal 48959/99; [2002] ECHR 468; [2002] ECHR 472 30 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Almeida Do Couto -c- Portugal 48233/99; [2002] ECHR 467; [2002] ECHR 471; [2010] ECHR 1868 30 May 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Buckinghamshire County Council -v- North West Estates plc and others Gazette, 11 July 2002; [2002] EWHC 1088 (Ch) 31 May 2002 ChD Mr Justice Jacob Planning, Human Rights The planning authority sought injunctions for enforcement notices. The landowner argued that human rights law required the court when looking at such a request to look at the entire planning history. Held: Although the court could look to a document directly referred to by a notice before requiring it to be followed, it was not obliged to investigate beyond such documents. A breach of the land owner's article 8 rights could cause a court to allow enforcement, but the basic issues involved in the planning decision underlying the enforcement notice were not to be put at issue. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â K -v- the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 775 31 May 2002 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Laws, And Lady Justice Arden Negligence, Human Rights The applicant sought damages from the defendant who had released from custody pending deportation a man convicted of violent sexual crimes and who had then raped her. She appealed a strike out of he claim. She had been refused information about the decision to release the offender because it was anticipated that her claim would in any event be struck out. It was later struck out because the claimant was not so clearly identifiable a victim of the offender as to anticipate a duty to her. Held: Negligence requires more than a want of care and foreseeability of damage. Where the duty of care is imposed on one person for the acts of another, the claimant must show a close connection with the offender so as to have created an awareness of the risk in the person against whom liability is asserted. The general rule is that one man is under no duty of controlling another man to prevent his doing damage to a third. The claimant argued that the Barrett case stated that a claim alleging negligence against a pubic authority should not be struck out but should be allowed to proceed for the facts to be established at trial. A strike out of a negligence claim for lack of proximity is not a denial of the applicant's article 6 right to a fair trial. Appeal dismissed. European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Lord Ashcroft -v- Attorney General and Department for International Development [2002] EWHC 1122 (QB) 31 May 2002 QBD The Hon Mr Justice Gray Information, Torts - Other, Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights The claimant was the subject of confidential reports prepared by the defendants which were leaked to newspapers causing him damage. He sought leave to amend his claim to add claims for breach of the Data Protection Act and for public misfeasance. Under the Civil Procedure Rules a new claim should be allowed if it is arguable. It was claimed that the failure to investigate the leak by the public authority itself amounted to an infringement of the claimant's human rights. However an investigation into the investigation of the source of the leak would be an improper diversion of the case. A case of misfeasance required the clearest of proof. There was none against the third named defendant, and the associated claim would not be allowed. Lateness is not to be a ground for refusing a claim for aggravated damages. Derogatory statements by third parties could not be relied upon to found a claim for aggravated damages. courtcommentary.com DPA 1998 s4(4) creates free-standing duty on data processors to comply with principles in Sch 1 Part I. Commissioner enforces compliance with principles, but his jurisdiction is non-exclusive so far as claims for damages by data subjects are concerned Data Protection Act 1984 - Data Protection Act 1998 4(4) - Civil Procedure Rules 17.3.5 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Yagmurdereli -v- Turkey 29590/96; [2002] ECHR 478; 29590/96; [2002] ECHR 482 4 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â William Faulkner -v- The United Kingdom 37471/97; [2002] ECHR 477; 37471/97; 37471/97; [2002] ECHR 481; [2011] ECHR 602 4 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Wessels-Bergervoet -v- The Netherlands 34462/97; [2002] ECHR 480; [2002] ECHR 737 4 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Wessels-Bergervoet -v- The Netherlands 34462/97 4 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved 1 Citers Â Komanicky -v- Slovakia 32106/96; [2002] ECHR 473; [2002] ECHR 477 4 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Olivieira -v- The Netherlands 33129/96 4 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of P4-2; No separate issue under Art. 8 Â Landvreugd -v- The Netherlands 37331/97; [2002] ECHR 474; [2002] ECHR 478 4 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of P4-2; No separate issue under Art. 8 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Olivieira -v- The Netherlands 33129/96; [2002] ECHR 475; [2002] ECHR 479 4 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of P4-2; No separate issue under Art. 8 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Wessels-Bergervoet -v- The Netherlands 34462/97; [2002] ECHR 476; [2002] ECHR 731 4 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Majstorovic -v- Croatia 53227/99; [2002] ECHR 480; 53227/99; 53227/99; [2002] ECHR 484 6 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marques Francisco -c- Portugal 47833/99; [2002] ECHR 481; [2002] ECHR 485 6 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Katsaros -c- Grece 51473/99; [2002] ECHR 479; [2003] ECHR 590; [2002] ECHR 483; [2003] ECHR 590 6 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sailer -v- Austria 38237/97; 38237/97; 38237/97; [2002] ECHR 486 6 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P7-4; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] Â Selim Sadak And Others -v- Turkey 25144/94; [2002] ECHR 482; [2011] ECHR 2393 11 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Selim Sadak And Others -v- Turkey 26150/95; [2002] ECHR 487; 25144/94; 26149/95 11 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Willis -v- The United Kingdom 36042/97; [2002] ECHR 483; (2002) 35 EHRR 547; [2002] 14-26 ECHR 2002-IV 11 Jun 2002 ECHR Discrimination, Human Rights Discrimination in the payment of 'widows payment' and widowed mother's allowance infringed the rights conferred by article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 but no finding was made about the widow's pension. The risk of the applicant being refused a widow's pension on grounds of sex at a future date was found to be hypothetical since it was not certain that she would otherwise fulfil the statutory conditions for the payment of the benefit on the relevant date. The court awarded Mr Willis £25,000 by way of just satisfaction. European Convention on Human Rights 14 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ol B -v- Italy 42444/98; [2002] ECHR 487; 42444/98; 42444/98; [2002] ECHR 492 13 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mereu And S Maria Navarrese S R L -v- Italy 38594/97; [2002] ECHR 486; 38594/97; [2002] ECHR 491 13 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention Proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â S B -v- Italy 40037/98; [2002] ECHR 488; 40037/98; 40037/98; [2002] ECHR 493 13 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â T -v- Italy 40537/98; [2002] ECHR 489; [2002] ECHR 494 13 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Belinger -v- Slovenia 42320/98; [2002] ECHR 485; 42320/98; 42320/98; [2002] ECHR 490; [2009] ECHR 2264 13 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Anguelova -v- Bulgaria 38361/97; 38361/97 13 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 2 in respect of death of applicant 1 Citers Â Â Anguelova -v- Bulgaria; ECHR 13-Jun-2002 - 38361/97; [2002] ECHR 489 Â Wierzbicki -v- Poland 24541/94; [2002] ECHR 496; 24541/94; 24541/94; [2002] ECHR 501 18 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Uthke -v- Poland 48684/99; [2002] ECHR 495; [2002] ECHR 500 18 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Orhan -v- Turkey 25656/94; [2002] ECHR 492; [2002] ECHR 497 18 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 2; Violation of Art. 3 in respect of applicant; Violation of Art. 5; Violation of Art. 8 and P1-1 in respect of applicant and brothers; Violation of Art. 8 in respect of applicant "ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity before it will be considered to fall within the provision's code" and "the practice of the Convention requires compliance with standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt that ill-treatment of such severity occurred" European Convention on Human Rights 3 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Samy -v- The Netherlands 36499/97; [2002] ECHR 493; [2002] ECHR 498 18 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Delbec -c- France 43125/98; [2002] ECHR 490; [2002] ECHR 495 18 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Oneryildiz -v- Turkey; ECHR 18-Jun-2002 - 48939/99; [2002] ECHR 491; [2002] ECHR 496 Â Woonbron Volkshuisvestingsgroep -v- The Netherlands 47122/99; [2002] ECHR 856 18 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Housing Decisions about state subsidies to housing associations do not raise issues about civil rights. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Turkiye Is Bankasi -v- Finland 30013/96; [2002] ECHR 494; [2002] ECHR 499 18 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Siegl -v- Austria 36075/97; [2002] ECHR 515; 36075/97; 36075/97; [2002] ECHR 520 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Berlinski -v- Poland 30209/96; [2002] ECHR 505; 27715/95 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Canli -c- Turquie 20136/92; [2002] ECHR 502; [2002] ECHR 507 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Burhan Bilgin -c- Turquie 20132/92; [2002] ECHR 501; [2002] ECHR 506 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â H D -v- Poland 33310/96; [2002] ECHR 506; [2002] ECHR 511 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Filiz And Kalkan -v- Turkey 34481/97; [2002] ECHR 509 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ali Erol -c- Turquie 35076/97; [2002] ECHR 498; [2002] ECHR 503 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Erdogan -c- Turquie 26337/95; [2002] ECHR 503; [2002] ECHR 508 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Munir Bilgin -c- Turquie 20134/92; [2002] ECHR 514; [2002] ECHR 519 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Koskinas -c- Grece 47760/99; [2002] ECHR 510; [2002] ECHR 515; [2010] ECHR 2234 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Turkan Aras -v- Turkey 29643/05; [2008] ECHR 545; [2010] ECHR 396 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mehmet Tasdemir -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 20158/92; [2002] ECHR 513; [2002] ECHR 518 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â In Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Northern Ireland Times, 25 June 2002; [2002] UKHL 25 20 Jun 2002 HL Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Woolf, Lord Nolan, Lord Hutton and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Human Rights, Litigation Practice, Northern Ireland, Coroners The coroner intended to hold an inquest into the deaths on the Omagh bombing. The Commission sought the right to be involved on the basis that human rights of interest to it might arise, and the coroner refused, saying that they had no standing to do so. Held: It was the intention in the Act to extend the powers of the commission. There were no express powers in the Act to make such an intervention, and as a purely statutory body, it had only those powers given to it. However, it had general powers to do such things as were appropriate to promote understanding of Human Rights law, and that would include the power to become involved in an inquest in the way suggested. Northern Ireland Act 1998 69 1 Cites [ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mahmut Sen -c- Turquie 20154/92; [2002] ECHR 512; [2002] ECHR 517 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Leyli Bilgin -c- Turquie 20133/92; [2002] ECHR 511; [2002] ECHR 516 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Uthke -v- Poland 27715/95; [2002] ECHR 500 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Excessive delay in judicial proceedings. European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Berlinski -v- Poland 30209/96; 27715/95 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses - claim rejected Â Ismet Sen -c- Turquie 20153/92; [2002] ECHR 508; [2002] ECHR 513 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kemal Sen -c- Turquie 20156/92; [2002] ECHR 509; [2002] ECHR 514 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Al-Nashif -v- Bulgaria 50963/99; [2002] ECHR 497; (2002) 36 EHRR 655; [2002] ECHR 502 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion, abuse of right of petition); Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 9 or Art. 13+9; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Azinas -v- Cyprus 56679/00; [2004] ECHR 189; [2002] ECHR 499; [2002] ECHR 504; [2004] ECHR 191 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Igdeli -v- Turkey 29296/95; [2002] ECHR 507; [2002] ECHR 512 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gunal -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 20142/92; [2002] ECHR 505; [2002] ECHR 510 20 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Migon -v- Poland 24244/94; [2002] ECHR 518; [2002] ECHR 523 25 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected "In the present case, the Court cannot speculate as to whether the applicant would have been detained if the procedural guarantees of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention had been respected in his case. Consequently, the Court considers that the non-pecuniary damage claimed is adequately compensated by the finding of a violation of this provision." European Convention on Human Rights 5(4) 1 Citers [ Worldii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Colombani And Others -v- France 51279/99; [2002] ECHR 516; [2002] ECHR 521 25 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights To introduce and apply special measures to protect the identity of certain individuals in court proceedings might violate Article 6(1) of the European Convention. European Convention on Human Rights 6(1) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Linard -c- France 42588/98; [2002] ECHR 517; [2002] ECHR 522 25 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Moyer -c- France 45573/99; [2002] ECHR 519; [2002] ECHR 524 25 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Teka Ltd -v- Greece 50529/99; [2002] ECHR 520; [2002] ECHR 525 26 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pialopoulos And Others -v- Greece 37095/97; [2001] ECHR 92; [2002] ECHR 540 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Eryk Kawka -v- Poland 33885/96; [2002] ECHR 529; [2002] ECHR 534 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bayram Et Autres -c- Turquie 35867/97; [2002] ECHR 523; [2002] ECHR 527 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Atalag -c- Turquie 38916/97; [2002] ECHR 521; [2002] ECHR 526 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Ashworth Security Hospital -v- MGN Limited; HL 27-Jun-2002 - Times, 01 July 2002; Gazette, 01 August 2002; [2002] UKHL 29; [2002] 1 WLR 2033; 12 BHRC 443; [2003] FSR 17; [2002] CPLR 712; [2002] UKHRR 1263; [2002] EMLR 36; (2002) 67 BMLR 175; [2002] HRLR 41; [2002] 4 All ER 193 Â Eryk Kawka -v- Poland 33885/96 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings Â Bayram -c- Turquie 38915/97; [2002] ECHR 522; [2002] ECHR 528 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pialopoulos And Others -v- Greece 37095/97 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award Â Delic -v- Croatia 48771/99 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 in respect of nine sets of proceedings; No violation of Art. 6-1 in respect of one set of proceedings; Violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Ozdiler -c- Turquie 33419/96; [2002] ECHR 532; [2002] ECHR 538 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Butler -v- United Kingdom Application No 41661/98; Unreported, 27 June 2002 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Crime A substantial confiscation order was made with respect to money seized from the applicant on the ground that customs officers believed the money was directly or indirectly the proceeds of drugs trafficking and/or was intended for use in drug trafficking. The applicant contended that a court, when considering whether to make a forfeiture order in the circumstances at issue, "must effectively be asking itself whether the individual concerned was planning at some future stage to use the funds in question for drug-related activity". The Court declared the application inadmissible. Criminal charges have not been brought against the applicant, nor against any other party. The applicant contended that the forfeiture of his money in reality represented a severe criminal sanction, handed down in the absence of procedural guarantees afforded to him under Article 6 of the Convention, in particular his right to be presumed innocent. The Court did not accept that view. The forfeiture was a preventive measure not to be compared to a criminal sanction, since it was designed to take out of circulation money which was presumed to be bound up with the international trade in illicit drugs. The proceedings which led to the making of the order did not involve the determination of a criminal charge. Drug Trafficking Act 1994 43(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers Â Birsel Et Autres -c- Turquie 37414/97; [2002] ECHR 525; [2002] ECHR 530 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Unlu -c- Turquie 35866/97; [2002] ECHR 537; [2002] ECHR 542 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Siddik Yasa -c- Turquie 22281/93; [2002] ECHR 536; [2002] ECHR 541 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bekmezci Et Autres -c- Turquie 37087/97; [2002] ECHR 524; [2002] ECHR 529 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ozdiler Et Bakan -c- Turquie 33322/96; [2002] ECHR 533; [2002] ECHR 537 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Delic -v- Croatia 48771/99; [2002] ECHR 527; [2002] ECHR 532 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 in respect of nine sets of proceedings; No violation of Art. 6-1 in respect of one set of proceedings; Violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â D.M. -c- France 41376/98; [2002] ECHR 526; [2002] ECHR 531 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â L.R. -c- France 33395/96; [2002] ECHR 531; [2002] ECHR 536 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Karabiyik Et Autres -c- Turquie 35050/97; [2002] ECHR 530; [2002] ECHR 535 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Denoncin -c- France 43689/98; [2002] ECHR 528; [2002] ECHR 533 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ozkan Et Autres -c- Turquie 35079/97; [2002] ECHR 534; [2002] ECHR 539 27 Jun 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â I, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] INLR 196; [2002] EWCA Civ 888 28 Jun 2002 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Dyson Criminal Sentencing, Immigration, Human Rights The appellant obtained asylum but was convicted of offences after entering, and ordered to be deported. Whilst serving his sentence the deportation order was served, but he was not released on licence at the time he would normally have been released. The respondent argued that it was seeking to make arrangements for his deportation. He argued that it was clear that he would not be deported within any reasonable time, and that his continued detention breached his rights. Held: The appellant could have secured his own release by agreeing to a voluntary repatriation. The phrase 'reasonable time' in the Tan Te Lam case must include time already spent awaiting deportation. The possibility of his re-offending was part of the circumstances and to be taken into account. The appellant's renewed application for asylum was critical. Even so, the reasonable time had already been exhausted by the time the judge's decision was made, and the appellant was to be released. (Mummery dissenting) Simon-Brown LJ said: "The likelihood or otherwise of the detainee absconding and/or re-offending seems to me to be an obviously relevant circumstance. If, say, one could predict with a high degree of certainty that, upon release, the detainee would commit murder or mayhem, that to my mind would justify allowing the Secretary of State a substantially longer period of time within which to arrange the detainee's removal abroad." However: "Given . . that the appellant had by then been in administrative detention for nearly 16 months and that the Secretary of State could establish no more than a hope of being able to remove him forcibly by the summer, substantially more in the way of a risk of re-offending (and not merely a risk of absconding) than exists here would in my judgment be necessary to have justified continuing his detention for an indeterminate further period. .) In short, I came to the clear conclusion that . . it was simply not justifiable to detain the appellant a day longer; the legal limits of the power had by then been exhausted." Dyson LJ summarised the law: "There is no dispute as to the principles that fall to be applied in the present case. They were stated by Woolf J in Re Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704, 706D . . This statement was approved by Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Tan Te Lam v Tai A Chau Detention Centre [1997] AC 97, 111A-D … In my judgment, [counsel] correctly submitted that the following four principles emerge: (i) The Secretary of State must intend to deport the person and can only use the power to detain for that purpose; (ii) The deportee may only be detained for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances; (iii) If, before the expiry of the reasonable period, it becomes apparent that the Secretary of State will not be able to effect deportation within that reasonable period, he should not seek to exercise the power of detention; (iv) The Secretary of State should act with the reasonable diligence and expedition to effect removal. Principles (ii) and (iii) are conceptually distinct. Principle (ii) is that the Secretary of State may not lawfully detain a person "pending removal" for longer than a reasonable period. Once a reasonable period has expired, the detained person must be released. But there may be circumstances where, although a reasonable period has not yet expired, it becomes clear that the Secretary of State will not be able to deport the detained person within a reasonable period. In that event, principle (iii) applies. Thus, once it becomes apparent that the Secretary of State will not be able to effect the deportation within a reasonable period, the detention becomes unlawful even if the reasonable period has not yet expired." Mummery LJ (dissenting) said: "As the appellant does not want to go back to Afghanistan, refuses to co-operate with the authorities to return voluntarily and has so far had no success in his asylum claims, there are, in my judgment, reasonable grounds for believing that, given the chance, he will probably seek to frustrate attempts to remove him under the deportation order before it is possible to carry it into effect. So, there is a real risk that, if he is now released from his present detention under paragraph 2(3) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, he will probably abscond and never return to Afghanistan. . . In my judgment, the Secretary of State has supplied a valid justification of the detention to date and of the need for it to continue for a longer period. In addition to the risk that the appellant will probably abscond if he is now released, the Secretary of State reasonably relies on continuing efforts on his behalf to operate the machinery for the appellant's removal." European Convention on Human Rights Art 5 - Immigration Act 1971 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Chant -v- Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Gazette, 11 July 2002 1 Jul 2002 Admn Mr Justice Sullivan Planning, Human Rights The applicant challenged an order requiring him to discontinue use of land on which were listed buildings in need of repair. The authority had concluded that compulsory purchase would not be sufficient to achieve the result required. The land owner contended that such an order was draconian, and should not be made without additional evidence for its necessity. Held: The true requirement was that the authority was required to be shown to be decisively in the public interest. The continued use would have negatived the attempt to restore the buildings. The inspector had properly balanced the need to restore the buildings and the needs of the settings. His human rights to enjoy his property had not been infringed, because of the public need to restore the buildings and the owners rights, and he would be compensated. Town and Country Planning Act 1990 102 1 Cites Â Brown -v- United Kingdom 44223/98; Unreported, 02 July 2002 2 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Article 6(2) of the Convention was not violated by a provision which enabled a newspaper proprietor or publisher to escape strict liability under section 4(5) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 only if he proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he was in no way at fault in connection with the offending publication. "The applicant submits that his conviction constitutes a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. He points out that imposing criminal liability upon non-editorial newspaper managers can lead to undue interference by them with the content of material to be published and can create a disincentive to invest in newspapers. He maintains that, in order to strike a proper balance between freedom of expression and the legitimate aim pursued by the Act, such fault should be required to be proved on the part of such managers, which should entail more than failure to read a newspaper in advance of publication... He maintains that if mere access to editorial contents is sufficient to prevent application of the section 5(5) defence, then that defence becomes useless. The Court notes that the parties agree that the relevant provisions ... restrict freedom of expression for the purposes of Article 10 of the Convention, and that the restriction pursued a legitimate aim. It notes also that the restriction was prescribed by law. The key issue in this case is therefore the proportionality of the impugned measures ... The Court notes that the relevant provisions of the Act did not require the prosecution to prove that the applicant was at fault in any way in connection with the publication of the offending article ... In particular, section 4(3) requires trial judges to lift the prohibition in certain cases where the public interest so requires. Further, section 5(5) allows those charged, like the applicant, with the section 4(5) offence to escape criminal liability by proving, on the balance of probabilities, that they were not aware, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that the publication concerned would identify a rape victim." and "The Court considers that it may be legitimate to hold newspaper proprietors in part responsible for the contents of their newspapers when those contents impinge upon the rights of others (cf Surek v Turkey (No.1) [GC], no. 26682/95, S 63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-IV)...the Court does not consider that the applicant's conviction and fine constituted a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded..." Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 4(5) 1 Citers Â Motais De Narbonne -c- France 48161/99; [2002] ECHR 545; [2003] ECHR 251; [2002] ECHR 550; [2003] ECHR 251 2 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lacko and Others -v- Slovakia 47237/99 2 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Article 13 does not mean a remedy bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint. European Convention on Human Rights 13 1 Citers Â Wilson, National Union Of Journalists And Others -v- The United Kingdom 30678/96; [2002] ECHR 552; 30668/96; 30671/96; [2002] IRLR 568; (2002) 35 EHRR 20 2 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights There is no statutory obligation on employers to recognise trade unions although unions and their members must be free to seek to persuade employers to listen to what the union has to say on behalf of its members. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Kroliczek -c- France 43969/98; [2002] ECHR 543; [2002] ECHR 548 2 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Goktan -v- France 33402/96; [2002] ECHR 541; [2002] ECHR 546 2 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Budescu Et Petrescu -c- Roumanie 33912/96; [2002] ECHR 538; [2002] ECHR 543 2 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dacewicz -v- Poland 34611/97 2 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings. Â Halka And Others -v- Poland 71891/01; [2002] ECHR 542; [2002] ECHR 547 2 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Wilson & The National Union of Journalists, Palmer, Wyeth & The National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers, Doolan & Others -v- The United Kingdom Times, 05 July 2002; 30668/96; [2002] ECHR 547; 30671/96; Times, 05 July 2002; [2002] IRLR 568; [2011] ECHR 1654 2 Jul 2002 ECHR J.-P. Costa, President and Judges A. Baka, G. Jörundsson, K. Jungwiert, M. Ugrekhelidze, A. Mularoni and Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, ad hoc judge Section Registrar S. Dollé Human Rights, Employment The appellants were journalists and other workers, and members of trades unions. Their employers had de-recognised the unions, paying sums to buy out those rights. The claimants had not surrendered their rights, and had been paid less because of it. Held: The Act did not protect the employees rights of association as guaranteed by article 11. The freedom to be a trade union member received special protection. The absence of an obligation on employers to enter into collective bargaining agreements did not infringe the right of free association, but the UK law did allow employers to treat less favourably employees wanting to exercise their rights to be members of trade unions, and that was a breach. Art 11 could not be read to oblige public authorities to provide a legal mechanism to compel an employer to enter into negotiations with a particular trade union. Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 23(1)(a) - European Convention on Human Rights 11 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Markass Car Hire Ltd -v- Cyprus 51591/99; [2002] ECHR 549; [2001] ECHR 897 2 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights The complaint was as to the length of the proceedings to set aside an ex parte interim order. The order was obtained on 31 March 1998 and under it the applicant was required to hand over to the plaintiff cars worth over £Cyprus 500,000. It was not until May 2000 that the Court eventually set aside the interim order. In the meantime, the applicant's business had been all but destroyed. The case did not concern the application of Article 6 to the grant of an interim order but to proceedings to set it aside where it was having an disastrous effect upon the applicant's business. In the circumstances the domestic court was under a duty to determine the applicant's application "in a summary and expeditious manner", and it had failed to do so. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dacewicz -v- Poland 34611/97; [2002] ECHR 539; [2002] ECHR 544 2 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â SN -v- Sweden 34209/96; [2002] ECHR 546; [2002] ECHR 551; ECHR 2002 V 2 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Evidence A trial involving a child witness was conducted by the video-recording of an interview conducted by a police officer with the child complainant, and an audio-recording of a second interview conducted by the same police officer, putting questions which he had been asked by the accused's counsel to put. Held: Despite the fact that counsel had had no opportunity to question the child directly, no violation of article 6(3)(d) was found The Court reiterated "that evidence obtained from a witness under conditions in which the rights of the defence cannot be secured to the extent normally required by the Convention should be treated with extreme care"; but it was satisfied that the national court had done just that. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Halka And Others -v- Poland 71891/01 2 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Desmots -c- France 41358/98; [2002] ECHR 540; [2002] ECHR 545 2 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fox -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 20 July 2002; Gazette, 12 September 2002 3 Jul 2002 QBD Mr Justice Lightman Customs and Excise, Magistrates, Human Rights The claimant had been stopped by customs. He had imported various items which it was alleged exceeded the amounts appropriate for personal use. The goods had been mixed with his travelling companion. At trial he sought to challenge the fact that the Customs had treated his and his companion's goods together. Held: The provision allowing forfeiture of any goods found with contraband did not mean that a claimant could not bring evidence to challenge the assertions made by Customs and Excise. To hold to the contrary would infringe the claimant's property rights. Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 141(1)(b) - European Convention on Human Rights Sch 1 Â Â Anderton -v- Clwyd County Council (No 2); Bryant -v- Pech and Another Dorgan v Home Office; Chambers -v- Southern Domestic Electrical Services Ltd; Cummins -v- Shell International Manning Services Ltd; CA 3-Jul-2002 - Times, 16 July 2002; Gazette, 12 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 933; [2002] 3 All ER 813; [2002] 1 WLR 3174 Â Rocci -c- Italie 43915/98; [2002] ECHR 562; [2002] ECHR 567 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tumbarello And Titone -v- Italy 42382/98; [2002] ECHR 569; 42291/98 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Pereira Palmeira And Sales Palmeira -v- Portugal 52772/99; [2002] ECHR 560; [2002] ECHR 565 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rados And Others -v- Croatia 45435/99; [2002] ECHR 566; [2002] ECHR 722 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list in respect of one applicant (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â M S -v- Bulgaria 40061/98; [2002] ECHR 557; [2002] ECHR 562; [2010] ECHR 937 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Del Federico -v- Italy 35991/97; [2002] ECHR 554; [2002] ECHR 559 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pascazi -c- Italie 42287/98; [2002] ECHR 559; [2002] ECHR 564 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mucciacciaro -v- Italy 44173/98; [2002] ECHR 558; [2002] ECHR 563 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rados And Others -v- Croatia 45435/99; [2002] ECHR 561; [2002] ECHR 716 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list in respect of one applicant (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Del Federico -v- Italy 35991/97 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Mucciacciaro -v- Italy 44173/98 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Tumbarello Et Titone -c- Italie 42291/98; [2002] ECHR 564 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Spinello -c- Italie 40231/98; [2002] ECHR 563; [2003] ECHR 55; [2002] ECHR 568; [2003] ECHR 55 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Barattelli -v- Italy 38576/97; [2002] ECHR 550; [2002] ECHR 555 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Boldrin -c- Italie 41863/98; [2002] ECHR 552; [2002] ECHR 557 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Barattelli -v- Italy 38576/97 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Falcone -c- Italie 37263/97; [2002] ECHR 556; [2002] ECHR 561 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Biagio Carbone -c- Italie 42600/98; [2002] ECHR 551; [2002] ECHR 556 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Vuono -c- Italie 42619/98; [2002] ECHR 555; [2002] ECHR 560 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Casadei -c- Italie 37249/97; [2002] ECHR 553; [2002] ECHR 558 4 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Ashworth Hospital Authority, Ex parte Munjaz (No 2) [2002] EWHC (Admin) 1521 5 Jul 2002 Admn Sullivan J Health, Human Rights, Health, Prisons, Human Rights The court dismissed the claimant's complaint that the seclusion policies operated at Ashworth Special Hospital infringed his human rights. The Special Hospitals operated policies for seclusion which differed from the Code of Practice laid down under the Act. Held: The claim was dismissed. Any seclusion had been of such a short duration as not to give rise to an infringement of the patient's rights. A departure from the Code did not imply a necessary infringement, since the Code was for guidance only. As to the alleged infringement of his article 3 and article 8 rights, the minimum level of severity required for Article 3 was not met and there was no breach of Article 8. It also found that the Code of Practice was merely guidance. The Court accepted evidence that the applicant had not remained in seclusion for longer than had been necessary, and that there was no evidence that more frequent reviews would have reduced the time spent in seclusion. The applicant was detained at Ashworth secure mental hospital. He challenged the lawfulness of the policy implemented for secuded detentions. Held: The Code fell within (1)(b) but not (1)(a). Mental Health Act 1983 47 49 - European Convention on Human Rights 3 8 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Regina -v- Ashworth Hospital Authority, Ex parte Munjaz (No 2) [2002] EWHC (Admin) 1521 5 Jul 2002 Admn Sullivan J Health, Human Rights, Health, Prisons, Human Rights The court dismissed the claimant's complaint that the seclusion policies operated at Ashworth Special Hospital infringed his human rights. The Special Hospitals operated policies for seclusion which differed from the Code of Practice laid down under the Act. Held: The claim was dismissed. Any seclusion had been of such a short duration as not to give rise to an infringement of the patient's rights. A departure from the Code did not imply a necessary infringement, since the Code was for guidance only. As to the alleged infringement of his article 3 and article 8 rights, the minimum level of severity required for Article 3 was not met and there was no breach of Article 8. It also found that the Code of Practice was merely guidance. The Court accepted evidence that the applicant had not remained in seclusion for longer than had been necessary, and that there was no evidence that more frequent reviews would have reduced the time spent in seclusion. The applicant was detained at Ashworth secure mental hospital. He challenged the lawfulness of the policy implemented for secuded detentions. Held: The Code fell within (1)(b) but not (1)(a). Mental Health Act 1983 47 49 - European Convention on Human Rights 3 8 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Cretu -c- Roumanie 32925/96; [2002] ECHR 569; [2002] ECHR 575 9 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nazzaro Et Autres -c- Italie 44348/98; [2002] ECHR 575; [2002] ECHR 580 9 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gaudenzi -c- Italie 44340/98; [2002] ECHR 574; [2002] ECHR 579 9 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fragnito -c- Italie 44349/98; [2002] ECHR 573; [2002] ECHR 578 9 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Falcoianu Et Autres -c- Roumanie 32943/96; [2002] ECHR 572; [2002] ECHR 577 9 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Delli Paoli -c- Italie 44337/98; [2002] ECHR 570; [2002] ECHR 576 9 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cannone -c- Italie 44341/98; [2002] ECHR 567; [2002] ECHR 572 9 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Carapella Et Autres -c- Italie 44347/98; [2002] ECHR 568; [2002] ECHR 573 9 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Basacopol -c- Roumanie 34992/97; [2002] ECHR 566; [2002] ECHR 571 9 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Domenico Cecere -c- Italie 44350/98; [2002] ECHR 571; [2002] ECHR 574 9 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Balanescu -c- Roumanie 35831/97; [2002] ECHR 565; [2002] ECHR 570 9 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nouhaud Et Autres -c- France 33424/96; [2002] ECHR 576; [2002] ECHR 581; [2010] ECHR 1856 9 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pace Et Autres -c- Italie 44351/98; [2002] ECHR 577; [2002] ECHR 582 9 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Seher Karatas -c- Turquie 33179/96; [2002] ECHR 578; [2002] ECHR 583 9 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Capitanio -v- Italy 28724/95; [2002] ECHR 582; 28724/95; [2002] ECHR 587 11 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Guazzone -v- Italy 39797/98; [2002] ECHR 590 11 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Carpenter -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] 2 WLR 267; [2002] EUECJ C-60/00; C-60/00; [2003] QB 416 11 Jul 2002 ECJ G C Rodríguez Iglesias, President and Judges N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues European, Immigration, Human Rights The applicant had come to England on a six month visitor's visa. She then married an English national, but her visa was not extended. Held: The husband had business interests and activities throughout the community. The deportation of the applicant would have the effect of removing her support for him and restrict his ability to trade within the EU. The right to trade could be relied upon by an individual as against the state where necessary. A member state could only derogate from the duty where the proposed action complied also with the convention. Here the proposed action would also infringe the right to family life. The deportation would be against EU law. 'Finally, the question of the risk of abuse should be considered, in particular the possible risk that the national rules of residence concerning the legal position of spouses of nationals who are nationals of non-member countries could be evaded by the spouse who is a national being tempted to "create" a Community connection. Thus it may be argued that the nationals of a member state might, for example, take up employment – even only for a short term – in another member state precisely in order thereby to "bring" themselves and the non-member country spouse within the scope of Community law. It might further be argued that the spouses who are nationals of non-member countries would thus be removed from the exclusive application of national law and would retain a legal position which might be more favourable than under national law, by thereby being given the possibility of residence based on Community law.' EC Treaty Art 49 - European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â M, Petitioner Times, 26 August 2002 11 Jul 2002 OHCS Lord Eassie Health, Scotland, Human Rights The petitioner challenged his detention and treatment as a mental patient under the 1984 Act, claiming that his human rights to a fair trial had been infringed. It was argued that since the Act automatically dispensed with his common law right to refuse treatment, he had had denied to him the chance to have this issue determined by a court. Held: The Act created a class of people, membership of which gave certain rights and took others away. He had rights to challenge his membership of that class, but he now sought to challenge the consequences of that membership. The attempt was misplaced under article 6. Under article 8, he questioned whether the interference in his rights was necessary. Given the acceptance that some limitation was permissible, it was a question of degree. It was not shown that the provisions were so far out of line with other states as to justify affirmation that the legislation was disproportionate. Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 - European Convention on Human Rights 1 6 8 1 Cites Â Amrollahi -v- Denmark 56811/00; [2002] ECHR 580; [2002] ECHR 585; [2001] ECHR 894; [2011] ECHR 2120 11 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (estoppel); Violation of Art. 8 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ozler -v- Turkey 25753/94; [2002] ECHR 589; [2002] ECHR 594 11 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Biegler Bau Gesmbh -v- Austria 32097/96; [2002] ECHR 581; [2002] ECHR 586 11 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â H E -v- Austria 33505/96; [2002] ECHR 586; [2002] ECHR 591 11 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Guazzone -v- Italy 39797/97; [2002] ECHR 585; 39797/97 11 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] Â Osu -v- Italy 36534/97; [2002] ECHR 588; 36534/97; [2002] ECHR 593 11 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; No separate issue under Art. 13; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Goc -v- Turkey 2002-V, p 193; 36590/97; [2000] ECHR 552; [2002] ECHR 584; 36590/97; [2000] ECHR 554; [2002] ECHR 589 11 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 on account of the absence of an oral hearing; Violation of Art. 6-1 on account of the non-communication of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings The applicant claimed compensation for alleged false imprisonment and torture and other ill-treatment by the police while he was in custody for which he had sought compensation. He complained that the court of first instance had denied him an oral hearing at which he could present his own direct evidence of the distress and anxiety which he had experienced. Held: (Grand Chamber by a majority of 9 to 8) The refusal of an oral hearing had violated article 6(1). According to the court's established case law, in proceedings before a court of first and only instance the right to a "public hearing" in the sense of article 6(1) entailed an entitlement to an oral hearing unless there were exceptional circumstances that justified dispensing with such a hearing. The question was how this test was to be applied, given that the proceedings that were under challenge were before a court of first instance. The essentially personal nature of the applicant's experience, and the determination of the level of compensation required that he be heard and that these factors outweighed the considerations of speed and efficiency on which, according to the government, the relevant law on which an oral hearing had been denied to him was based. Dissenting minority: The court's case law had never required oral proceedings in all circumstances. Having referred to various authorities (dissenting opinion): "That case-law lays down three criteria for determining whether there are 'exceptional circumstances' which justify dispensing with a public hearing: there must be no factual or legal issue which requires a hearing; the questions which the court is required to answer must be limited in scope and no public interest must be at stake." and "Requiring domestic courts to hold a hearing every time a claim raising no particular problems is submitted to them might practically frustrate the objective of complying with the 'reasonable time' requirement in article 6(1) of the Convention." European Convention on Human Rights 691) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Amrohalli -v- Denmark Unreported, 11 July 2002 11 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights A properly conducted examination of proportionality when considering a deportation is quite capable of producing a decision in favour of the applicant. 1 Citers Â Â Goodwin -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 11-Jul-2002 - Times, 12 July 2002; 28957/95; (2002) 35 EHRR 18; (2002) 35 EHRR 447; [2002] ECHR 588; 13 BHRC 120; (2002) 67 BMLR 199; [2002] 2 FCR 577; [2002] 2 FLR 487; [2002] Fam Law 738; [2002] IRLR 664; [2011] ECHR 1666 Â I -v- The United Kingdom 25680/94; [2002] ECHR 587; 25680/94; [2002] ECHR 592; [2011] ECHR 1663 11 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 12; No separate issue under Art. 14; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Alithia Publishing Company -v- Cyprus 53594/99; [2002] ECHR 579; 53594/99; [2002] ECHR 584 11 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Strategies Et Communications Et Dumoulin -c- Belgique 37370/97; [2002] ECHR 593; [2002] ECHR 598; [2011] ECHR 2137 15 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ezeh and Connors -v- The United Kingdom Times, 30 July 2002; 39665/98; 40086/98; [2002] ECHR 590; [2003] ECHR 485; (2002) 35 EHRR 691; (2003) 39 EHRR 1; [2002] ECHR 595; (2002) 35 EHRR 28 15 Jul 2002 ECHR J-P. Costa, President, and Judges W. Fuhrmann, L. Loucaides, Sir Nicolas Bratza, H. S. Greve, K. Traja and M. Ugrekhelidze Section Registrar S. Dollé Human Rights, Prisons The applicants were serving prisoners. They had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in which they had been denied the right to representation. They claimed an infringement of their right to a fair trial. Held: Both proceedings had resulted in the extension of the respective prison sentences. The rules gave the governor discretion to allow representation, but no duty. The Convention required a defendant to be allowed legal representation in any criminal proceedings. Case law allowed exclusion of representation in adjudication proceedings, but these proceedings required representation. The procedure did infringe the prisoners' human rights. European Convention on Human Rights 6(3) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Matthews -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 15-Jul-2002 - Times, 30 July 2002; 40302/98; [2002] ECHR 592; [2002] ECHR 597 Â Kalashnikov -v- Russia 47095/99; [2002] ECHR 591; [2002] ECHR 596; [2010] ECHR 567 15 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Prisons Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Some measure of control over prisoners’ contacts with the outside world is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention. European Convention on Human Rights 3 5-3 6-1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ulku Ekinci -v- Turkey 27602/95 16 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion, six month period); No violation of Art. 2 with regard to killing of applicant Â P , C And S -v- The United Kingdom Times, 16 August 2002; 56547/00; [2002] ECHR 599; 56547/00; (2002) 35 EHRR 1075; [2002] ECHR 604 16 Jul 2002 ECHR Costa, Baka, Bratza, Jörundsson, Loucaides, Bîrsan and Ugrekhelidze, Early Human Rights, Children, Family The applicants challenged the way in which their newborn children had been removed by the state after birth. She had not had the opportunity of legal representation, after her lawyers had withdrawn. The removal of S's child was challenged as disproportionate and a breach of the right to family life. Held: Given the importance of the decision, the denial of legal representation infringed the family's legal rights. Representation was necessary, and the refusal to allow an adjournment denied a fair trial. The procedure under which a decision was made before the birth of a child to remove it at birth, leading to a probable adoption was draconian and not justified given the alternative possibilities, and was an interference with the right to family life. European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Yildiz -c- Turquie 32979/96; [2002] ECHR 603; [2002] ECHR 608 16 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Armstrong -v- The United Kingdom Times, 06 August 2002; 48521/99; [2002] ECHR 594; 48521/99; [2002] ECHR 599 16 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Police, Evidence Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient The applicant had pleaded guilty to charges after the court had rules as admissible evidence gathered by covert surveillance involving recording conversations in the home of a colleague. Authority had been granted by a chief superintendent and not by a chief constable, and on the grounds that no other form of surveillance would be adequate given the sophisticated nature of the defendants' alleged activities. At the time there was no statutory system to govern the use of such surveillance, and no means of redress. The interference with the right of privacy was not therefore in accordance with law, and was in breach of his human rights. European Convention on Human Rights 8 13 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Davies -v- The United Kingdom Times, 01 August 2002; 42007/98; [2002] ECHR 597; (2002) 35 EHRR 720; [2002] ECHR 602 16 Jul 2002 ECHR M. Pellonpää, President and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, A. Pastor Ridruejo, E. Palm, M. Fischbach, J. Casadevall and S. Pavlovschi, Section Registrar M. O'Boyle Human Rights, Company, Damages The applicant had been subject to applications for his disqualification from acting as a company director. The Secretary of State waited until the last day before issuing proceedings, and the proceedings were then delayed another three years pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against others. The government responded that the proceedings were complex, and the applicant himself had contributed to the delay by his own applications. Held: The total delay was unjustified and inordinate, and the delay infringed the applicant's right to a determination within a reasonable period of time. The domestic court had criticised the respondent for its delay. The proceedings had not been pursued with diligence. The court would not make an award of damages for financial losses, but that did not prevent an award for the stress of the delay, and an award was made in this case. Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 6 - European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Surek -v- Turkey (No. 5) 28307/95; [2002] ECHR 606; 26976/95; 28305/95 16 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Selim -v- Cyprus 47293/99; [2002] ECHR 600; 47293/99; [2002] ECHR 605 16 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Armstrong -v- The United Kingdom 48521/99; 48521/99 16 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Â Â Surek -c- Turquie; ECHR 16-Jul-2002 - 26976/95; [2002] ECHR 601 Â Selim -v- Cyprus 47293/99; 47293/99 16 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Â Ulku Ekinci -v- Turkey; ECHR 16-Jul-2002 - 27602/95; [2002] ECHR 602 Â Aydin -c- Turquie 29289/95; [2002] ECHR 595; [2002] ECHR 600 16 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ciobanu -c- Roumanie 29053/95; [2002] ECHR 596; [2002] ECHR 601 16 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Oprea Et Autres -c- Roumanie 33358/96; [2002] ECHR 598; [2002] ECHR 603 16 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Ullah) -v- Special Adjudicator Times, 05 September 2002 16 Jul 2002 Admn Mr Justice Harrison Immigration, Human Rights The appellant challenged an order denying him asylum and for his return to Pakistan. He said that his return would infringe his human rights be exposing him to denial of his rights to freedom of thought and religious belief. Held: The considerations under article 9 were the same as those already expounded by the court with regard to article 6 in this situation. There is a permitted derogation under both articles for considerations of immigration control. The most the court could do would be to consider whether there was be a flagrant interference with the right. That did not apply here. European Convention on Human Rights 9 - Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65 Â Regina -v- Gemmell [2002] EWCA Crim 1992; [2003] 1 Cr App R 343 17 Jul 2002 CACD Dyson LJ Crime, Human Rights Dyson LJ said: "The position is quite clear. So far as Article 6 is concerned, the fairness of the provisions of the substantive law of the Contracting States is not a matter for investigation. The content and interpretation of domestic substantive law is not engaged by Article 6." European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Barber) -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] 2 FLR 1181; Times, 29 August 2002; Gazette, 19 September 2002; [2002] EWHC 1915 (Admin) 17 Jul 2002 Admn Sir Richard Tucker Benefits, Human Rights The claimant challenged the refusal of the respondent, under authority of the regulations, to divide payment of child benefit between himself and his former partner. The child stayed with both parents. Other benefits flowed from the allocation of the benefit to one parent. He alleged that this was discriminatory under the Convention. Held: The challenge to the Regulations failed. The purpose of the Regulation was to ensure payment of the benefit to someone with care of the child. The regulation could not be construed so as to allow the benefit to be split. It was not discrimination, since the detriment, such as it was, was applied across the range of potential beneficiaries, and there was insufficient evidence for the court to consider a claim of indirect sex discrimination. Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No 1968) 34 - European Convention on Human Rights 8 14 - Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 144 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- G and R Times, 01 August 2002 17 Jul 2002 CACD Lord Justice Dyson, Mr Justice Silber and Judge Beaumont, QC Crime, Human Rights The defendants were children accused of arson being reckless as to the danger of damage. They were not entitled to require the jury to consider as a separate question whether the risk of damage was obvious other than to an ordinary adult. Held: The question at issue was substantial, as to the mens rea and the evidence required to support the charge, and not procedural. Accordingly the defendants' human rights to a fair trial were not engaged. The Caldwell case still applied. That case had been criticised, but still stood. The Convention rights should be construed broadly, but even so remained concerned with procedure, not the substantial fairness of the law. Criminal Damage Act 1971 1(1) 1(3) - European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Cites Â T -v- Special Educational Needs Tribunal and Another [2002] EWHC 1474 (Admin); [2002] EWHC 1474 (Admin) 18 Jul 2002 Admn Mr Justice Richards Education, Human Rights Gilliatt Parents wanted their high end autistic child to be educated according to the Lovaas principle at home with a phased introduction into mainstream school. The local education authority proposed that the child should be educated at a specialist centre based in a school. The court held that under s 319 of the Education Act 1996 the SEN Tribunal only had to decide whether the education provision proposed by the LEA was appropriate. If it was, there was no power for arrangements to be made outside a school, such as the parents preferred. The Tribunal had done as much as it had to in taking into account the views of the parents. At the High Court hearing, the argument had been put for the first time that there was a breach of Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the Human Rights Act and that the parents belief in the value of the Lovaas method amounted to a philosophical conviction. The court said that it was too late to run the argument and it should have been put to the SENT but that in any event the parents' beliefs did not amount to a philosophical conviction but only a judgment that one educational method was to be preferred to another. Education Act 1996 319 [ Bailii ] Â Freiheitliche Landesgruppe Burgenland -v- Austria 34320/96; [2002] ECHR 605; 34320/96; [2002] ECHR 610 18 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â C and Another -v- Bury Metropolitan Borough Council Times, 25 July 2002 18 Jul 2002 FD Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss Children, Human Rights Where a children case involving a challenge to a care plan or the placement of children in care would raise issues under the Human Rights legislation, the case should normally be heard before a High Court judge of the Family Division. If possible it should be listed before a judge with experience also of administrative law. Such cases now involved a broader and more investigative approach than hitherto. The courts have a wide discretion when looking at such matters which also placed greater responsibility on a court. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Cites Â Tacchino And Scorza -v- Italy 34714/97 18 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Vietti -v- Italy 37248/97; 37248/97 18 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Pittini -v- Italy 37007/97; 37007/97 18 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Freiheitliche Landesgruppe Burgenland -v- Austria 34320/96; 34320/96 18 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Â Regina -v- Boyd, Regina -v- Hastie, Regina -v- Spear (On Appeal From Her Majesty's Courts Martial Appeal Court), Regina -v- Saunby, Regina -v- Clarkson, Regina -v- English, Regina -v- Williams, Regina -v- Dodds, Regina -v- Leese, etc; HL 18-Jul-2002 - Times, 19 July 2002; Gazette, 19 September 2002; [2002] UKHL 31; [2003] 1 AC 734; [2002] 3 All ER 1074; [2002] ACD 97; [2002] HRLR 40; [2002] 3 WLR 437; [2002] HRLR 43; [2003] 1 Cr App R 1 Â Pittini -v- Italy 37007/97; [2002] ECHR 607; 37007/97; [2002] ECHR 612 18 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tacchino And Scorza -v- Italy 34714/97; [2002] ECHR 608; [2002] ECHR 613 18 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Venturi -c- Italie 36010/97; [2002] ECHR 609; [2002] ECHR 614 18 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â N. Et D.A. -c- Italie 35243/97; [2002] ECHR 606; [2002] ECHR 611 18 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â SJ (Article 8 Proportionality, PTSD, Bosnian Muslim, Medical Facilities) Bosnia CG; IAT 18-Jul-2002 - [2002] UKIAT 02819 Â C.M.F. -c- Italie 38415/97; [2002] ECHR 604; [2002] ECHR 609 18 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vietti -v- Italy 37248/97; [2002] ECHR 610; 37248/97; [2002] ECHR 615 18 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â AS (Sufficiency of Protection) Lithuania CG; IAT 19-Jul-2002 - [2002] UKIAT 02843 Â Regina -v- Muhamad Times, 16 August 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 1856; [2003] QB 1031; [2003] 2 WLR 1050 19 Jul 2002 CACD Lord Justice Dyson, Mr Justice Silber and Judge Goddard, QC Insolvency, Crime, Human Rights The appellant had been convicted of an offence under the section in that as a bankrupt, he "in the two years before the petition, materially contributed to, or increased the extent of, his insolvency by gambling or by rash and hazardous speculations". The actus reus – the bankruptcy petition and the bankruptcy to which it gives rise – does not exist and may never come to exist at the time of the gambling or speculations. Held: Under Article 7 of the ECHR, retrospectivity under section 362(1)(a) did not offend the principle of legal certainty or Article 7 (in relation to which it was held to be proportionate). There is nothing objectionable in principle with strict liability offences under Article 7 which required a different conclusion, than that the offence under section 362(1)(a) is one of strict liability. Dyson LJ said: The offences where no mental element is specified, for the most part, attract considerably lower maximum sentences than those where a mental element is specified." Insolvency Act 1986 362(1)(a) - European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Â Mills -v- HM Advocate and Another; PC 22-Jul-2002 - Times, 23 July 2002; [2002] UKPC D2; [2004] 1 AC 441 (PC) Â Vastberga Taxi Aktiebolag And Vulic -v- Sweden 36985/97 23 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 in respect of access to court; Violation of Art. 6-1 in respect of length of proceedings; No violation of Art. 6-2; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Denli -c- Turquie 68117/01; [2002] ECHR 611; [2002] ECHR 616 23 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Taskin -c- Allemagne 56132/00; [2002] ECHR 615; [2002] ECHR 620 23 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rajcevic -v- Croatia 56773/00; [2002] ECHR 614; 56773/00; [2002] ECHR 619 23 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â J K -v- Slovakia 38794/97; 38794/97 23 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â J K -v- Slovakia 38794/97; [2002] ECHR 612; 38794/97; [2002] ECHR 617 23 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vastberga Taxi Aktiebolag And Vulic -v- Sweden 36985/97; [2002] ECHR 616; [2002] ECHR 621 23 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hertsmere Borough Council -v- Slattery and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1231 23 Jul 2002 CA Planning, Human Rights Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B - uropean Cinvention on Human Rights 8 [ Bailii ] Â Rajcevic -v- Croatia 56773/00; 56773/00 23 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected Â Janosevic -v- Sweden 34619/97; [2002] ECHR 613; [2002] ECHR 618 23 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Complaint was made that tax surcharges were applied in a way which was incompatible with article 6(2) because "an almost insurmountable burden of proof" was imposed on the taxpayer. Held: There was no need for the Swedish authorities to prove intent or negligence, but states might, in principle and under certain conditions, penalise a simple or objective fact as such, irrespective of whether it resulted from criminal intent or from negligence. There was, on the facts, an effective presumption against the taxpayer, and "in employing presumptions in criminal law, the Contracting States are required to strike a balance between the importance of what is at stake and the rights of the defence; in other words, the means employed have to be reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim sought to be achieved". The Court acknowledged that it was difficult for the taxpayer to rebut the presumption in question, but he was not without means of defence, and the Court had regard to the financial interests of the state in tax matters and its dependence on the provision of correct and complete information by taxpayers in concluding that the presumption was confined within reasonable limits. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sovtransavto Holding -v- Ukraine 48553/99; [2002] ECHR 621; [2003] ECHR 476; [2002] ECHR 626; [2003] ECHR 476 25 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Papon -v- France; ECHR 25-Jul-2002 - 54210/00; [2002] ECHR 618; [2002] ECHR 623 Â Perote Pellon -c- Espagne 45238/99; [2002] ECHR 619; [2002] ECHR 624 25 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rosa Marques Et Autres -c- Portugal 48187/99; [2002] ECHR 620; [2002] ECHR 625 25 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Onder -v- Turquie 31136/96; [2002] ECHR 622 25 Jul 2002 ECHR Sir Nicolas BRATZA, P Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Holder -v- Law Society Times, 09 September 2002; [2002] EWHC 1599 (Ch); [2003] 1 WLR 1059 25 Jul 2002 ChD Mr Justice Peter Smith Legal Professions, Human Rights The applicant solicitors' practice had been subject to an intervention by the respondent. He claimed that by intervening in his practice, his human right to enjoy his possessions without interference had been infringed. Held: The power of intervention was necessary to balance the need to protect the public and respect for the solicitor's rights. Whether the solicitor's rights to free enjoyment of his possessions had been infringed was a matter of fact and degree in the particular circumstances of each case. This case was not so clear cut, and the summary judgment for the Law Society striking out the claim was set aside. The court asked about the use of powers which would destroy a soilicitor's practice: "In some cases it may be necessary because it might be a necessary evil to correct a much greater one. The more interesting question is, is it always necessary. In that case I am not convinced that it can be said that an intervention in the way in which the procedure is currently permitted to be exercised, is always necessary. It follows from that analysis that if the procedure was not necessary in that way, and it resulted in the interference in the right to possession of property, the procedure itself will infringe the claimant's human rights. I do not see that it can be said that there is no other alternative. If a report for example, is prepared along the lines of the present case there would have been no difficulty in making an appointment at short notice to go to court for an order for an intervention or some lesser order if the court thought that appropriate. There would then be an independent review and the court (like a search order or a freezing order) would act on the evidence. If the evidence was made out, there would be an independent review of the procedure. Intervention in a full blown way might be required on occasions. Alternatively the court might feel a lesser intervention (such as a receiver, a manager) would be appropriate.. . ." 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Regina (Rose and Another) -v- Secretary of State for Health and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Times, 22 August 2002; Gazette, 10 October 2002; [2002] EWHC 1593 (Admin) 26 Jul 2002 Admn Mr Justice Scott Baker Children, Human Rights, Administrative, Health Applications were made, challenging the refusal of the Secretary of State for Health, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, to institute a system where a child born by artificial insemination could make enquiries as to his or her parenthood. Held: The knowledge of facts about one's biological parenthood was part of the right to family or private life. Accordingly the decisions made did engage the children's Human Rights, and the appropriate tests should be applied to that decision making process. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Meftah And Others -v- France 34595/97; [2002] ECHR 627; 32911/96; 35237/97 26 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Meftah And Others -v- France 35237/97; 32911/96; [2001] ECHR 97; [2001] ECHR 313; [2002] ECHR 622; [2001] ECHR 316 26 Jul 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) 32911/96; 35237/97; 34595/97 Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c as regards the fact that the applicant was not permitted to speak at the hearing in the Court of Cassation; Violation of Art. 6-1 as regards the failure to supply a copy of the Advocate-General 32911/96; 35237/97; 34595/97 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (A) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 05 September 2002 30 Jul 2002 Admn Mr Justice Crane Health, Human Rights The applicant had been a detained mental patient. He was granted a deferred order for his release. He challenged the delay of the respondent and his refusal to allow release under section 17 for overnight stays out of the hospital. Held: The secretary of state had a duty to act with reasonable speed. The department had chosen in practice to rely upon section 43 to control a patients behaviour in this situation, but that was wrong, and the proper section to act under was section 17. The 1983 Act could be read so as not to deny the applicant's human rights. Mental Health Act 1983 817 42 Â Regina (on the Application of Kanagasingham Kariharan & Kanagara) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Office Times, 13 August 2002; Gazette, 03 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1102; [2003] QB 933 30 Jul 2002 CA Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Arden Immigration, Human Rights The applicants were subject to removal directions following the failures of their applications for asylum had failed. The decisions were made before the Human Rights Act came into effect, but the direction orders were made afterwards. They sought to challenge the directions on Human Rights grounds. Held: They had a right of appeal since the removal directions were decisions under the Immigration Acts being decisions affecting the applicants right to enter into or remain in the UK. The decisions exercised a discretion, and were freestanding and themselves subject to the Human Rights Act. Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65 - Human Rights Act 1998 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Westminster City Council -v- Porter and Another Times, 22 August 2002 30 Jul 2002 ChD Mr Justice Hart Local Government, Human Rights The claimant authority sought compensation from the respondents for acts committed whilst she had been a councillor. The auditor had certified that the respondents had caused losses amounting to 31 million pounds. Held: Summary judgement was granted. The certification procedure under the 1988 Act had left undisturbed the equitable right of a local authority to certify its losses occasioned by its officers. The council was entitled to judgement both under its common law powers and under the Act since they arose from the same facts. The respondent was not entitled to a stay of execution pending her application to the European Court of Human Rights. Such a stay might be granted only where it was clear that a judgement might lead to a statutory reversal of the law on which the claim was founded. Audit Commission Act 1988 18 1 Cites Â A, X and Y, and others -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] HRLR 1274 30 Jul 2002 SIAC Collins J, Kennedy LJ and Mr Ockelton Human Rights The applicants challenged their detention without trial as foreign nationals suspected of terrorist associations. The Home Secretary considered "that the serious threats to the nation emanated predominantly (albeit not exclusively) and more immediately from the category of foreign nationals." However "upwards of a thousand individuals from the UK are estimated on the basis of intelligence to have attended training camps in Afghanistan in the last five years," that some British citizens are said to have planned to return from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom and that "The backgrounds of those detained show the high level of involvement of British citizens and those otherwise connected with the United Kingdom in the terrorist networks." Held: "But the evidence before us demonstrates beyond argument that the threat is not so confined. There are many British nationals already identified - mostly in detention abroad - who fall within the definition of 'suspected international terrorists,' and it was clear from the submissions made to us that in the opinion of the [Home Secretary] there are others at liberty in the United Kingdom who could be similarly defined." " . . . we fail to see how the derogation can be regarded as other than discriminatory on the grounds of national origin." Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 (SI 2001/3644) - Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 21 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Â Sengupta -v- Holmes and Others, Lord Chancellor intervening; CA 31-Jul-2002 - Times, 19 August 2002; Gazette, 10 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1104 Â Â Levi Strauss & Co and Another -v- Tesco Stores Ltd and others; ChD 31-Jul-2002 - [2000] EWHC 1556 (Ch); [2002] ETMR 95 Â Â Plinio Galfetti -v- Regina; CACD 31-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWCA Crim 1916 Â Â Adams and Others -v- Lord Advocate; IHCS 31-Jul-2002 - Times, 08 August 2002; [2002] ScotCS 344; 2002 SCLR 881; 2003 SLT 366; 2002 GWD 26-879; [2002] UKHRR 1189; 2003 SC 171 Â Â TK (Article 3, Blind Person, KAA, Prison Condition) Iraq CG; IAT 8-Aug-2002 - [2002] UKIAT 03576 Â Â KB (Article3, Health, Medical Facilities) Democratic Republic of Congo; IAT 8-Aug-2002 - [2002] UKIAT 03571 Â AA Lawal -v- Northern Spirit Limited Times, 07 November 2002; Gazette, 28 November 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 327 9 Aug 2002 CA Lord Justice Mummery, Phillips MR, Pill LJ Human Rights, Employment The appellant had had his case considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He complained that his opponent had been represented in court by an advocate who himself sat part time in the EAT, and that this would lead to undue weight and respect being given to his arguments, so as to bias the tribunal. One of the EAT panel had previously sat on another panel with his opponent's representative. Held: The test was an objective one, whether a reasonable observer would see a risk of bias. The system of appointing part time members to the panel was appropriate and helpful. The reasonable observer must be assumed to be informed, and to make appropriate enquiries before reaching a conclusion. The system did include some measures to protect against this risk. In this case there were no additional ties between the representative and any member of the panel. (majority opinion) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Mehmet Bayrak -c- Turquie 27307/95; [2002] ECHR 623; [2002] ECHR 628 3 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pushpanathan -v- Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2002] FCJ No 1207; 2002 FCT 867 3 Sep 2002 Blais J Immigration, Human Rights, Crime, Commonwealth FCC (Federal Court of Canada - Trial Division) - Application by Pushpanathan for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division that he was not a Convention refugee. Pushpanathan was a Tamil citizen of Sri Lanka. He alleged that he was persecuted on the basis of his political opinions and was detained after participating in a political demonstration. While in Canada, Pushpanathan was convicted of conspiracy to traffic heroine along with five other Tamils and served over two years in a federal penitentiary. At his first hearing, the Refugee Division found that the conviction excluded him from refugee status because it was contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. On appeal, the court ordered a new hearing. At the second hearing, the Refugee Division found that Pushpanathan was excluded from refugee protection on the basis of his involvement in crimes against humanity and terrorist activities associated with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. HELD: Application dismissed. The standard of review was less than a balance of probabilities. The Refugee Division correctly concluded that the Liberation Tigers was a terrorist organization. Through the trafficking of narcotics, Pushpanathan was complicit in supporting the Liberation Tigers and demonstrated a personal knowing participation and common purpose with the Tigers. 1 Citers [ UNCHR ] Â Boso -v- Italy 50490/99; [2002] ECHR 846 5 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â HL -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 10-Sep-2002 - [2002] ECHR 850; 45508/99; [2004] 40 EHRR 761 Â Du Toit and Vos -v- Minister for Welfare and Population Development (2002) 13 BHRC 187; [2002] ZACC 20; CCT 40/01 10 Sep 2002 Commonwealth, Constitutional, Human Rights, Discrimination (South African Constitutional Court) Prospective adoptive parents were a same-sex couple who challenged laws preventing them from adopting. The court said: "In their current form the impugned provisions exclude from their ambit potential joint adoptive parents who are unmarried, but who are partners in permanent same-sex life partnerships and who would otherwise meet the criteria set out in section 18 of the Child Care Act… Their exclusion surely defeats the very essence and social purpose of adoption which is to provide the stability, commitment, affection and support important to a child's development, which can be offered by suitably qualified persons… Excluding partners in same sex life partnerships from adopting children jointly where they would otherwise be suitable to do so is in conflict with the principle [of the paramountcy of the interests of the child]… It is clear from the evidence in this case that even though persons such as the applicants are suitable to adopt children jointly and provide them with family care, they cannot do so. The impugned provisions … thus deprive children of the possibility of a loving and stable family life… The provisions of the Child Care Act thus fail to accord paramountcy to the best interests of the children." 1 Citers [ Saflii ] Â Allen -v- United Kingdom 76574/01; [2002] ECHR 858 10 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Taxes Management The court rejected as inadmissible an application challenging admissibility of evidence obtained from him by the Revenue either by compulsion or inducement. Held: "The Court notes that in this case the applicant does not complain that the information about his assets which he gave the Inland Revenue was used against him in the sense that it incriminated him in the commission of an offence due to acts or omissions in which he had been involved prior to that moment. His situation may therefore be distinguished from that of the applicant in Saunders … The applicant was charged with and convicted of the offence of making a false declaration of his assets to the Inland Revenue. In other words, he lied, or perjured himself through giving inaccurate information about his assets. This was not an example of forced self-incrimination about an offence which he had previously committed; it was the offence itself. It may be that the applicant lied in order to prevent the Inland Revenue uncovering conduct which might possibly be criminal and lead to a prosecution. However, the privilege against self-incrimination cannot be interpreted as giving a general immunity to actions motivated by the desire to evade investigation by the revenue authorities." The court noted small penalties for refusing a declaration and the two years imprisonment for refusing to answer questions in Saunders and added: "Nor does the Court consider that any improper inducement was brought to bear through the use of the so-called "Hansard Warning" which informed the applicant of the practice of the Inland Revenue of taking into account the co-operation of the taxpayer in deciding whether to bring any prosecution for fraud. There is no indication that the applicant was misled as to the effect of the warning, accepting that it could not be interpreted as any kind of guarantee of freedom from prosecution. Consequently, the Court does not find that the facts of this case disclose any infringement of the right to silence or privilege against self-incrimination or that there has been any unfairness contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Abbasi and Another, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Office and others; CA 10-Sep-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1316 Â Yves Mifsud -v- France 57220/00; [2002] ECHR 851 11 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Scott Davidson -v- The Scottish Ministers (No 2) [2002] ScotCS 256; 2003 SC 103 11 Sep 2002 IHCS Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Kirkwood and Lord Philip Scotland, Prisons, Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights 1 Cites 1 Citers [ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (on the application of S) -v- Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, Regina (Marper) -v- Same Times, 03 October 2002; Gazette, 17 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1275; [2003] 1 All ER 148; [2002] All ER (D) 62; [2002] NLJR 1483; [2002] 1 WLR 3223; [2002] 40 LS Gaz R 32; [2003] Crim LR 39 12 Sep 2002 CA Lord Woolf, Waller LJ, Sedley LJ Police, Human Rights The applicants had been charged with offences, but later acquitted. On arrest they had had DNA samples taken, and the details added to the national DNA database. The police refused to remove the records after the acquittals. Held: The refusal to remove the records was not an infringement of a right of privacy. How it affected an individual might be a matter of his cultural background. The uses to which the DNA could be put closely matched the section. The presumption of innocence did not provide any protection against being investigated when suspected of crime. No adverse consequences could flow from the data being held unless the applicant committed a crime. The difference in treatment as against persons who had not been suspected of crime was justified. Waller LJ said: “fingerprints and DNA profiles reveal only limited personal information. The physical samples potentially contain very much greater and more personal and detailed information. The anxiety is that science may one day enable analysis of samples to go so far as to obtain information in relation to an individual's propensity to commit certain crime and be used for that purpose within the language of the present section [Section 82 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001]. It might also be said that the law might be changed in order to allow the samples to be used for purposes other than those identified by the section. It might also be said that while samples are retained there is even now a risk that they will be used in a way that the law does not allow. So, it is said, the aims could be achieved in a less restrictive manner... Why cannot the aim be achieved by retention of the profiles without retention of the samples? The answer to [these] points is as I see it as follows. First the retention of samples permits (a) the checking of the integrity and future utility of the DNA database system; (b) a reanalysis for the upgrading of DNA profiles where new technology can improve the discriminating power of the DNA matching process; (c) reanalysis and thus an ability to extract other DNA markers and thus offer benefits in terms of speed, sensitivity and cost of searches of the database; (d) further analysis in investigations of alleged miscarriages of justice; and (e) further analysis so as to be able to identify any analytical or process errors. It is these benefits which must be balanced against the risks identified by Liberty. In relation to those risks, the position in any event is first that any change in the law will have to be itself Convention compliant; second any change in practice would have to be Convention compliant; and third unlawfulness must not be assumed. In my view thus the risks identified are not great, and such as they are they are outweighed by the benefits in achieving the aim of prosecuting and preventing crime.” European Convention on Human Rights Art 8.1 Art 14 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 64 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â William Kurt Treptow -v- Romania 30358/03; [2008] ECHR 492 12 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Laurence Pay -v- The United Kingdom 32792/05; [2007] ECHR 765; [2008] ECHR 1007 18 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Azas -v- Greece 50824/99; [2002] ECHR 624; [2002] ECHR 629; [2011] ECHR 2168 19 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (Judgement in French only) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Prince Pinder -v- The Queen Times, 04 October 2002; Gazette, 31 October 2002; [2002] UKPC 46 23 Sep 2002 PC Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffman, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing, Constitutional, Commonwealth, Crime (Bahamas) The applicant challenged his sentence to a flogging as an inhuman or degrading punishment. Held: The constitution of Bahamas did not prohibit flogging as an inhuman punishment. The constitution explicitly preserved modes of punishment which had been accepted on the island before its implementation. This was so despite its later revocation and revival. The article of the constitution had to be construed narrowly but properly. However the particular sentence failed to state whether the flogging was to be by a rod or a cat of nine tails, and so was incomplete and void. The choice of implement was a judicial one. (Nicholls and Hope dissenting) Constitution of the Bahamas 17 [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Van Hoogstraten) -v- Governor of HM Prison Belmarsh Gazette, 31 October 2002; Times, 05 November 2002 23 Sep 2002 QBD Jackson J Prisons, Legal Professions, European, Human Rights The prisoner was awaiting sentence. He had dismissed his legal team, and wanted to appoint Italian lawyers, and avvocato to advise him, in the expectation that the Italian lawyer would later engage English lawyers to present his case in court. He wanted his lawyer to see him in prison, and appealed the prison's refusal to allow access for the lawyer. Held: The rule required a 'legal adviser', and an avvocato was included within the 1978 order, which in turn implemented European Law. As a prisoner awaiting sentence, he was undergoing a trial process, and had his rights governed by the Convention, which meant that he must have adequate opportunity to prepare his mitigation and his defence. The Italian lawyer must be allowed entry to the prison. Prison Rules 1999 2 - European Communities (Services of Lawyers) Order 1978 - European Convention on Human Rights Â N, Regina (On the Application of) -v- M and Others [2002] EWHC 1911 (Admin) 24 Sep 2002 Admn Silber J Health, Human Rights The patient challenged the decision of her doctors to administer anti-psychotic medicine for the prevention or for the alleviation of her psychotic illness, to which she did not consent. Mental Health Act 1983 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Ervin And Olga De Laczay -v- Sweden 30526/96; [2002] ECHR 626; [2002] ECHR 631 24 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â M G -v- The United Kingdom Times, 11 October 2002; 39393/98; [2002] ECHR 627; 39393/98; [2002] ECHR 632; [2010] ECHR 1861 24 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Information Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award The applicant complained that in denying to him access to his social services records, they had not allowed him to discover his personal history to come to terms with his abuse. Information had been provided in summary form only, and other information denied on the basis that it had been created before the 1987 Act. Held: The failure to provide the records violated his Article 8 rights. The system denied him any right to the information, and no right or means of appeal against the refusal. There had been a failure to fulfil the positive obligations to the claimant. This situation is remedied for records after the coming into force of the Data Protection Act 1998. European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 - Access to Personal Files Act 1987 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cuscani -v- The United Kingdom Times, 11 October 2002; 32771/96; [2002] ECHR 625; 32771/96; [2002] ECHR 630 24 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-e; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings The claimant had been convicted and sentenced for evading tax. His first language had been Italian, and his grasp of English weak. At one point the court offered him an interpreter, but at his trial, when he pleaded guilty, his counsel allowed the claimant's brother to act as an interpreter, but in fact he spoke little English either, and did no effective translation. The defendant sought to challenge the sentence because it was entered on values which he could now show were much smaller than had been presented. The Criminal Cases Review Commission could not send it back to court because the conviction itself was not unsafe, only the sentencing basis. Held: The trial judge has a duty himself to ensure fairness, and to satisfy himself that any interpreter required was available. He could not leave it to the defendant, because this was a matter of the fairness of the proceedings. The defendant had not had a fair trial. European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Posti And Rahko -v- Finland 27824/95; [2002] ECHR 629; [2002] ECHR 634; [2009] ECHR 2220 24 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection partly allowed (six months); Preliminary objections partly rejected (six months, non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of P1-1; No violation of P1-1 in conjunction with Art. 14; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nerva And Others -v- The United Kingdom Times, 10 October 2002; 42295/98; [2002] ECHR 628; [2002] ECHR 633 24 Sep 2002 ECHR J P Costa, Baka, Bratza, Jorundsson, Loucaides, Birsan, Ugrekhelidze Human Rights, Employment The claimants were waiters. Tips paid were included in credit card payments to their employers, who then paid them out in 'additional pay'. The waiters claimed that this was then included within the wage, and used to calculate their minimum pay. Instead it had been paid to the employers on trust and was not to be included within the minimum wage calculation. They now appealed claiming that treating the tips otherwise, was an unlawful interference with their property rights. Held: The employee would pay tax and national insurance on the sum in question, would receive it before their employer, and payment was guaranteed even if the transaction was fraudulent. There was no interference in their property rights. How tips were treated was a matter of private contract between employer and employee. A customers possible expectation as to the legal implications of the application of the tip paid was too uncertain a basis to found a breach. European Convention on Human Rights 14 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Grisez -c- Belgique 35776/97; [2002] ECHR 632; (2003) 36 EHRR 854; [2002] ECHR 637 26 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice The court held that "the medical experts did actually cause a certain amount of delay in the conduct of the proceedings," and rejected the complaint under article 5(3): "[T]he delay due to the medical reports, although improper, does not in itself provide a sufficient basis for a finding that there was a violation of article 5(3) of the Convention. The total length of the detention pending trial in this case—two years, three months and nineteen days—does not appear excessive in view of the seriousness of the charges and the number of matters requiring investigation." European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vasilopoulou -v- Greece 47541/99; 47541/99 26 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses - claim rejected Â Benjamin & Wilson -v- The United Kingdom Times, 09 October 2002; 28212/95; [2002] ECHR 631; [2002] ECHR 636 26 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Health, Constitutional The applicant challenged the system in the UK of deciding on his release from a secure mental hospital. He had been a discretionary life prisoner, but then later his detention was continued because of his mental condition. Though an independent tribunal reviewed his case, it was passed to the Secretary of State actually to decide on his release. Held: The system infringed the applicant's right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial court. The system did not make a sufficient break between the branches of government. Thought the tribunal was independent, it did not have the power to release him which was essential to the right. European Convention on Human Rights& Art 5.4 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Becker -c- Allemagne 45448/99; [2002] ECHR 630; [2002] ECHR 635 26 Sep 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rice -v- The United Kingdom 65905/01; [2002] ECHR 639; [2002] ECHR 644 1 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Baragan -c- Roumanie 33627/96; [2002] ECHR 635; [2002] ECHR 640 1 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bodine Bencze -v- Hungary 42373/98; [2002] ECHR 636; [2002] ECHR 641 1 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kosa -v- Hungary 43352/98; [2002] ECHR 638; [2002] ECHR 643 1 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sawicka -v- Poland 37645/97; [2002] ECHR 640; [2002] ECHR 645 1 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Agatone -c- Italie 36255/97; [2002] ECHR 634; [2002] ECHR 639 1 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bohmer -v- Germany 37568/97; [2002] ECHR 642; [2002] ECHR 647 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Longotrans - Transportes Internacionais, Lda -c- Portugal 50843/99; [2002] ECHR 650 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Longotrans-Transportes Internacionais LDA -v- Portugal 51194/99; [2002] ECHR 655; 50843/99; 51193/99 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Gocer -v- The Netherlands 51392/99 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Janeva -v- The Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia 58185/00; [2002] ECHR 648; [2002] ECHR 653; [2009] ECHR 1735 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â G.L. -c- Italie 54283/00; [2002] ECHR 644; [2002] ECHR 649 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Morais Sarmento -c- Portugal 53793/00; [2002] ECHR 651; [2002] ECHR 656 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rosalba Pugliese -c- Italie 43986/98; [2002] ECHR 652; [2002] ECHR 657 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Saraiva E Lei -c- Portugal 54449/00; [2002] ECHR 653; [2002] ECHR 658 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Agostinho -c- Portugal 54073/00; [2002] ECHR 641; [2002] ECHR 646 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gianotti -v- Italy 39690/98; [2002] ECHR 646; 39690/98; [2002] ECHR 651 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kucera -v- Austria 40072/98 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-3-c Â Calvagno -v- Italy 41624/98 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Gianotti -v- Italy 39690/98 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Gocer -v- The Netherlands 51392/99; [2002] ECHR 647; [2002] ECHR 652; [2010] ECHR 1876 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kucera -v- Austria 40072/98; [2002] ECHR 649; 40072/98; [2002] ECHR 654 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-3-c [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Calvagno -v- Italy 41624/98; [2002] ECHR 643; 41624/98; [2002] ECHR 648 3 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Roderick Hart, Relentless Recordings Ltd -v- Relentless Records Ltd, Relentless Music Publishing Ltd, Media Village PR Ltd Times, 08 October 2002; [2002] EWHC 1984 (Ch) 4 Oct 2002 ChD The Hon Mr Justice Jacob Human Rights, Litigation Practice The judge had informally met counsel in the corridor outside court, and advised him of the need to settle the case. The client asked the judge to recuse himself, having compromised his independence and impartiality. Held: Such meetings were a proper part of litigation, and did much to assist avoidance of increased costs. In deciding whether to recuse himself a judge must ask whether a fair, informed and reasonable observer would consider there to be a real risk of bias. Such an observer would not so judge, and he declined to recuse himself. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â European Roma Rights Centre and 6 others -v-Tthe Immigration Officer at Prague Airport, The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 1989 (Admin) 8 Oct 2002 QBD The Honourable Mr Justice Stanley Burnton The Honourable Justice Burton < Immigration, Human Rights, Discrimination There is an "administrative, financial and indeed social burden borne as a result of failed asylum seekers". Immigration Act 1971 1 2 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Beckles -v- The United Kingdom Times, 15 October 2002; 44652/98; (2002) 36 EHRR 162; [2002] ECHR 661 8 Oct 2002 ECHR Pellonpaa, Bratza, Trdruejo, Palm, Casadevali, Marustem, Paviovschi JJ Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Evidence The applicant had been convicted of serious offences, in part in reliance upon inferences drawn from his partial silence during interview. At trial, he said this had been on legal advice, and was ready to answer questions about that advice, but none were put. Held: The right of silence was not absolute, but the right against self-incrimination lay at the heart of the notion of a fair trial. A conviction could not be based solely on inferences drawn from silence, but he could be expected to answer questions, where the situation clearly called for his explanation. In this case, the judge did not give the jury sufficiently clear direction on the accused's explanation of why he had not answered questions, and had undermined that evidence. There had been a violation of his art 6.1 rights. "whether the drawing of adverse inferences from an accused's silence infringes Article 6 is a matter to be determined in the light of all the circumstances of the case, having regard to the situations where inferences may be drawn, the weight attached to them by the national courts in their assessment of the evidence and the degree of compulsion inherent in the situation. Of particular relevance are the terms of the trial judge's direction to the jury on the issue of adverse inferences". European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) -v- Chorley Justices Times, 22 October 2002; Gazette, 07 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2162 (Admin) 9 Oct 2002 Admn Latham, McCombe JJ Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Human Rights The prosecution had requested the magistrates to impose on the defendant as a condition of his bail, a requirement that when so requested by a police officer checking that he was at home and otherwise complying with the bail condition, he should come to door. Held: The 'doorstep' condition was validly imposed. The Act gave the magistrates the power to impose such conditions as appeared to them to be necessary to secure the defendant's appearance at court. The defendant's article 5 and 8 rights were engaged, the procedure was clear, accessible, and proportionate. Bail Act 1976 3(6) - European Convention on Human Rights 5 8 [ Bailii ] Â Mehmet Celebi -c- Turquie 20139/92; [2002] ECHR 661; [2002] ECHR 666 10 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Theraube -c- France 44565/98; [2002] ECHR 664; [2002] ECHR 669 10 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Karausta -v- Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Gazette, 24 October 2002 10 Oct 2002 Admn Mr Justice Sullivan Planning, Human Rights The applicant sought planning permission extending the hours for her hot food take away after midnight. It was refused for the effect on local residents. She complained that the Inspector had failed to consider a shorter extension, and that another local shop did have such hours. Held: The inspector was not obliged to consider suggestions not put to him. The Inspector had properly allowed that the questions engaged the applicants human rights, but had properly balanced her rights against public needs. The possible comparator might itself later have conditions imposed. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Â Ince -c- Turquie 20143/92; [2002] ECHR 660; [2002] ECHR 665 10 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ocal -v- Turkey 30944/96 10 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Suleyman Kaplan -v- Turkey 38578/97 10 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Suleyman Kaplan -v- Turkey 38578/97; [2002] ECHR 663 10 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ocal -v- Turkey 30944/96; [2002] ECHR 662; 30944/96; [2002] ECHR 667 10 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gundogan -c- Turquie 31877/96; [2002] ECHR 659; [2002] ECHR 664 10 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Czekalla -v- Portugal 38830/97; [2002] ECHR 657; 38830/97; [2002] ECHR 662 10 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â D P & J C -v- The United Kingdom Times, 23 October 2002; 38719/97; [2002] ECHR 658; [2002] ECHR 663 10 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings The applicants had been sexually abused as children. They sought damages from the local authority for failing in its duty to protect them. They complained that they had complained to Social Services, but no action was taken. Held: Art 3 was not infringed, since the evidence of the complaint to the authority was absent. Though Art 8 might impose a duty positively to protect the applicants as children, again it was not shown that the authority was aware of the abuse. Art 6 was not infringed because there was no positive duty of care to the applicant. However, Art 13 required the party to be given a hearing when there was an arguable complaint, and a means of establishing who was at fault even where there was no remedy in damages. That did not exist, and Art 13 was breached. European Convention on Human Rights 3 6 8 13 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Campbell -v- Mirror Group Newspapers plc Times, 16 October 2002; Gazette, 31 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1373; [2003] 2 WLR 80; [2003] QB 633; [2003] 1 All ER 224; [2003] EMLR 39 14 Oct 2002 CA Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Chadwick LJ, Keene Lj Information, Media, Human Rights The newspaper appealed a finding that it had infringed the claimant's privacy by publishing a photograph of her leaving a drug addiction clinic. Held: The claimant had courted publicity, and denied an involvement in drugs. The defence of qualified privilege in defamation is not to be equated with the rules in privacy cases. The photograph was an essential part of demonstrating the deceit of the claimant. Given the story, the addition of the photograph was not particularly significant. If the publication was in the public interest, the journalist had to have some latitude. The balance between the Convention created rights of privacy and the freedom of the press is still being developed. The 1998 Act exemption was given to the data, once established, and therefore applied at all stages of its use. "In interpreting the Act it is appropriate to look to the Directive for assistance. The Act should, if possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the Directive. Furthermore, because the Act has, in large measure, adopted the wording of the Directive, it is not appropriate to look for the precision in the use of language that is usually to be expected from the parliamentary draftsman. A purposive approach to making sense of the provisions is called for." and "The development of the law of confidentiality since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force has seen information described as 'confidential' not where it has been confided by one person to another, but where it relates to an aspect of an individual's private life which he does not choose to make public. We consider that the unjustifiable publication of such information would better be described as breach of privacy rather than breach of confidence." Data Protection Act 1998 32 - European Convention on Human Rights - Directive 95/46/EC 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Frisbee -v- Campbell [2002] EWCA Civ 1374; [2003] ICR 141 14 Oct 2002 CA Lord Justice Keene, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Phillips MR Media, Employment, Intellectual Property, Human Rights The claimant sought an account against her former employee for the disclosures made by her of their activities. The respondent had signed a confidentiality agreement. The respondent counterclaimed for assault. She now appealed from dismissal of her appeal against the summary judgment entered against her, arguing that the judge was wrong to dismiss her case as unarguable, since the contract was repudiated by the claimant's own violent and other misconduct. The claimant argued that a confidentiality clause within an employment context survived any repudiation, and no public policy applied to justify the disclosure. Held: Whilst the defendant might not expect to succeed, it could not be said that her case was unarguable and the case was not appropriate for summary judgement. The existence of the Press Code engaged the defendants rights of free expression. Those rights were not absolute, and were to be seen with a balance including also the claimant's privacy rights. Whilst the defendant was not to be encouraged to persist, the case was not so unarguable as to be properly dismissed in a summary procedure: "We consider that it is arguable that a duty of confidentiality that has been expressly assumed under contract carries more weight, when balanced against the right of freedom of expression, that a duty of confidence than is not buttressed by express agreement" 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Karakoc And Others -v- Turkey 28498/95; [2002] ECHR 672; 27692/95; 28138/95 15 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Ayse Ã–ZtÃœRk -c- Turquie 24914/94; [2002] ECHR 665; [2002] ECHR 670 15 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Canete De Goni -v- Spain 55782/00; [2002] ECHR 666; [2002] ECHR 671 15 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Karakoc Et Autres -c- Turquie 27692/95; [2002] ECHR 667 15 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Ottomani -c- France 49857/99; [2002] ECHR 668; [2002] ECHR 673 15 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vieziez -v- France 52116/99; [2002] ECHR 670; [2002] ECHR 675 15 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Somjee -v- The United Kingdom 42116/98; [2002] ECHR 669; [2002] ECHR 674 15 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Agga -v- Greece (No. 2) 52912/99; [2002] ECHR 676; 50776/99 17 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Agga -v- Greece (No 2) 50776/99; 52912/99 17 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 9 ; No separate issue under Art. 10 ; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Â N O -v- Turkey 33234/96; [2002] ECHR 672; [2002] ECHR 677 17 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vostic -v- Austria 38549/97 17 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-2 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Costs and expenses partial award Â Â Westminster City Council -v- National Asylum Support Service; HL 17-Oct-2002 - Times, 18 October 2002; [2002] UKHL 38; [2002] 1 WLR 2956; [2002] 4 All ER 654; [2002] HLR 58; (2002) 5 CCL Rep 511; [2003] BLGR 23 Â Pinson -c- France 39668/98; [2002] ECHR 673; [2002] ECHR 678 17 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) -v- Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina -v- Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others; HL 17-Oct-2002 - Times, 21 October 2002; [2002] UKHL 39; [2002] 3 WLR 1313; [2003] 1 AC 787; [2002] 4 All ER 593; [2003] BLGR 57; [2002] 13 BHRC 482; (2002) 166 JPN 850; (2002) 166 JP 657; [2003] HLR 17; [2002] UKHRR 1286; [2003] 1 Cr App R 27 Â N O -v- Turkey 33234/96 17 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Thangarasa; Same Ex parte Yogathas; HL 17-Oct-2002 - Times, 18 October 2002; [2002] UKHL 36; [2002] 3 WLR 1276; [2003] 1 AC 920; [2002] 4 All ER 785; [2002] INLR 620; [2003] Imm AR 227; [2002] 14 BHRC 185 Â Stambuk -v- Germany 37928/97; [2002] ECHR 674; [2002] ECHR 679; (2002) 37 EHRR 845 17 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Thieme -c- Allemagne 38365/97; [2002] ECHR 676; [2002] ECHR 681 17 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Terazzi Srl -c- Italie [2002] ECHR 675; 27265/95; [2004] ECHR 558; [2002] ECHR 680; [2004] ECHR 558 17 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vostic -v- Austria 38549/97; [2002] ECHR 677; [2002] ECHR 682 17 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-2 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Agga -v- Greece (No 2) 52912/99; 50776/99; [2002] ECHR 671 17 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 9 ; No separate issue under Art. 10 ; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient [ Bailii ] Â Muzevic -v- Croatia 39299/02; [2006] ECHR 991 18 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Taylor-Sabori -v- The United Kingdom Times, 31 October 2002; 47114/99; [2002] ECHR 686; 47114/99; 47114/99 22 Oct 2002 ECHR J-P Cost, Bratza, Loucaides, Birsan, Jungwiert, Butkevych, Thomassen Human Rights, Evidence, Criminal Practice The applicant had been convicted of serious criminal offences. There were admitted into evidence intercepts of messages to his pager. He complained that this infringed his right to respect for his private correspondence. Held: The pager messages were correspondence. The UK legislation covering interception of correspondence did not apply to such materials, and accordingly any interception was not under a regime which was 'in accordance with law' as required, and infringed his rights. European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Perkins And R. -v- The United Kingdom 43208/98; [2002] ECHR 685 22 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Beck, Copp And Bazeley -v- The United Kingdom 48537/99; [2002] ECHR 684; 48535/99; 48536/99 22 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Murat Satik Et Autres -c- Turquie 24737/94; [2002] ECHR 684 22 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Mateescu Et Autres -c- Roumanie 30698/96; [2002] ECHR 683; [2002] ECHR 688 22 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Perkins And R. -v- The United Kingdom 44875/98; [2002] ECHR 690; 43208/98 22 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Taylor-Sabori -v- United Kingdom 47114/99; [2002] ECHR 691 22 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Foley -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 22-Oct-2002 - 39197/98; [2002] ECHR 682; [2002] ECHR 687; (2003) 36 EHRR 15 Â Perkins And R -v- The United Kingdom 43208/98; 44875/98 22 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; No separate issue under Art. 14+8 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Fentati -c- France 45172/99; [2002] ECHR 681; [2002] ECHR 686 22 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Curutiu -c- Roumanie 29769/96; [2002] ECHR 680; [2002] ECHR 685 22 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Beck, Copp And Bazeley -v- The United Kingdom 48537/99; 48535/99; 48536/99; [2002] ECHR 679 22 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; No separate issue under Art. 14+8 ; No violation of Art. 3 ; No violation of Art. 14+3 ; Not necessary to examine Art. 10 ; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+10 ; Violation of Art. 13 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award. [ Bailii ] Â AlgÃœR -c- Turquie 32574/96; [2002] ECHR 678; [2002] ECHR 683 22 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Murat Satik And Others -v- Turkey 24740/94; [2002] ECHR 689; 24737/94; 24739/94 22 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Sartorelli -v- Italy 47895/99 24 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Messina (NÂ° 3) . ITALIE (33993/96; [2002] ECHR 690 24 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Sartorelli -v- Italy 47895/99; [2002] ECHR 692; 47895/99; [2002] ECHR 697 24 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Biffoni -v- Italy 46079/99; 46079/99 24 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Biffoni -v- Italy 46079/99; [2002] ECHR 687; 46079/99; [2002] ECHR 692 24 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â W.Z. -c- Pologne 65660/01; [2002] ECHR 693; [2002] ECHR 698 24 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pisano -v- Italy 36732/97; 36732/97 24 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) ; Struck out of the list (matter resolved) Â Hetoja, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 11 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2146 (Admin) 24 Oct 2002 Admn Lightman J Immigration, Benefits, Human Rights, Housing The applicant was an asylum seeker reliant upon the respondent for housing, being otherwise destitute. She sought housing which would not split up her extended family. She claimed that the regulations excluded from the respondent's decision making process an element, her right to respect for family life, which he was obliged under the Convention to have regard to. Held: The regulations required the respondent not to take account of the applicant's own personal preferences. This did not prevent him having proper regard for her circumstances, including the factors which she sought to have reflected, in his duty to provide adequate accommodation. The regulations did not conflict with her rights. National Assistance Act 1948 - Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 97(2) - Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (2000 No 704) 13(2)(a) - European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 [ Bailii ] Â F And F -v- Italy 31928/96; 31928/96 24 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â F And F -v- Italy 31928/96; [2002] ECHR 688; 31928/96; [2002] ECHR 693 24 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Messina (No. 3) -v- Italy 33993/96; [2002] ECHR 695 24 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Pisano -v- Italy 36732/97; [2000] ECHR 396; [2002] ECHR 691; 36732/97; [2000] ECHR 397; [2002] ECHR 696 24 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) ; Struck out of the list (matter resolved) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Mastromatteo -v- Italy; ECHR 24-Oct-2002 - 37703/97; [2002] ECHR 694 Â Regina (Bernard and Another) -v- Enfield Borough Council Times, 08 November 2002; Gazette, 12 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2282 Admin; [2003] HLR 27; [2003] HRLR 111 25 Oct 2002 Admn Sullivan J Damages, Human Rights, Housing The claimants were husband and wife. They had six children. The wife was severely disabled and confined to a wheelchair. The defendant Council provided the family with a small house but in breach, as they ultimately accepted, of section 21(1) (a) of the National Assistance Act, failed to provide the family with accommodation suited to her disability. The claimants had had their human rights infringed by the respondents who had failed in their duties to provide assistance and so to respect their rights to private and family life. Held: The courts must respect the intention of the Act and the seriousness of the infringement. The council had not acted for some 20 months. There is no comparable tort, but awards should neither be low or high in comparison. Awards or maladministration are comparable. £10,000 was appropriate here. Human Rights Act 1988 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 - National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a) 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Bernard, Regina (on the Application of) -v- London Borough of Enfield [2002] EWHC 2282 (Admin); [2003] HRLR 111; [2003] LGR 423 25 Oct 2002 Admn Sullivan J Damages, Human Rights, Housing The claimants were husband and wife. They had six children. The wife was severely disabled and confined to a wheelchair. In breach of their duty under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, the respondent council failed for some 20 months to provide the family with accommodation suited to her disability. The consequences were appalling. The wife was doubly incontinent and, because there was no wheelchair access to the lavatory, was forced to defecate and urinate on the living-room floor. And she was unable to play any part in looking after her six children. Held: The respondent's failure was a clear breach of the claimant's article 8 rights and not at all finely balanced. The court awarded £10,000 damages. Human Rights Act 1998 8 - National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â A, X and Y, and others -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 29 October 2002; Gazette, 28 November 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1502; [2004] QB 335 25 Oct 2002 CA Woolf, LCJ, Brooke, Chadwick LLJ Immigration, Human Rights The applicant challenged regulations brought in by the respondent providing for foreigners suspected of terrorism to be detained where a British national suspect would not have been detained. The respondent had issued a derogation from the Convention for this purpose. Held: The people detained were those who could not be returned to their own country for fear of persecution. The reasons for detention were ones of suspicion only. The order was discriminatory, but was set against a background of a national emergency following the terrorist attacks in September 2001. A court should be careful before seeking to challenge a conclusion of the Respondent relating to matters of national security. A non-national did not enjoy the same rights as a national. The discrimination was real but not unjustified. Proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission are not criminal proceedings for the purposes of Article 6. The result is that Article 6 (2) and (3) do not apply. European Convention on Human Rights Art 15 - Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 (2001 No 3644) - Terrorism Act 2001 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Alison Hardy & Rodney Maile -v- The United Kingdom 31965/07; [2009] ECHR 1839; [2012] ECHR 261 28 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Phillips -v- Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 04 November 2002; Gazette, 28 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2093 (Admin) 28 Oct 2002 QBD Latham LJ, McCombe J Licensing, Human Rights The applicants were mini-cab drivers. They challenged the regulations which prohibited the driving of commercial vehicles and vehicles for hire in the areas regulated, with the exception of black cabs, and under which they had been convicted. They claimed that this was discriminatory. Held: The black cabs were a traditional part of the London scene, and very different. The appellants' rights were not engaged, but even if they were, the prohibition would be proportionate. Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations (1997 No 1639) 4(27) [ Bailii ] Â Skjevesland -v- Geveran Trading Co Ltd Times, 13 November 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1567; [2003] 1 All ER 1; [2003] 1 WLR 912; [2003] BPIR 238 30 Oct 2002 CA Arden LJ, Schiemann LJ, Dyson LJ Legal Professions, Human Rights The debtor's wife was personally acquainted with counsel for the petitioner in his bankruptcy examination. He sought that it be set aside. Held: Whereas a judge had a duty to be independent of the parties, no such duty fell on counsel. A court might disqualify counsel where there was a complaint as to use, or disclosure of confidential material in his possession, or other exceptional material. CPR 1.3 requires the parties to "help the court to further the overriding objective". That duty extends to the legal advisers of the parties, including advocates. Civil Procedure Rules 1.3 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â James -v- Baily Gibson & Co (a firm) Gazette, 28 November 2002 30 Oct 2002 CA Lords Justice Judge and May Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights The claimant succeeded in an action for negligence against the respondent solicitors. The court required her to submit to a psychiatric examination to allow assessment of her claim. In default the entire action was to be stayed. She refused, and appealed, saying that her right to a fair trial had been infringed. Held: The court had no power to order a rehearing of matters rejected at previous hearings. However the claimant had a duty to co-operate, and the stay was correct, but not as to all the heads of damages claimed, and the order was varied accordingly. Access to Justice Act 1999 54(4) - Civil Procedure Rules 52.3.7 - European Convention on Human Rights 6(1) Â Koncept-Conselho Em Comunicacao E Sensibilizacao de Publicos LDA -v- Portugal 49279/99; [2002] ECHR 700 31 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Koncept-Conselho Em ComunicaÃ‡ÃƒO E SensibilizaÃ‡ÃƒO De PÃšBlicos, Lda. -c- Portugal 49279/99; [2002] ECHR 695 31 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Gil Leal Pereira -c- Portugal 48956/99; [2002] ECHR 694; [2002] ECHR 699 31 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others; HL 31-Oct-2002 - Times, 01 November 2002; [2002] UKHL 41; [2002] 1 WLR 3131; [2002] 4 All ER 785; [2003] ACD 11; [2003] UKHRR 173; [2002] INLR 523 Â Yildiz -v- Austria 37295/97; 37295/97 31 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses partial award. Â Yildiz -v- Austria 37295/97; [2002] ECHR 696; 37295/97; [2002] ECHR 701 31 Oct 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses partial award. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Carney -v- Inspector of Taxes [2002] UKSC SPC00347 1 Nov 2002 SCIT Income Tax, Human Rights CHILD CARE EXPENSES of a self-employed person – whether deductible – no – whether Human Rights Act 1998 applies to a tax year before coming into force where the act of disallowance took place afterwards – no – whether the point is covered by primary legislation – yes – whether article 1 protocol 1 and article 14 of the Human Rights Convention apply – no – whether articles 8 and 14 apply – no. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â R -v- Her Majesty's Advocate and Another [2002] UKPC 56 1 Nov 2002 PC Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Scotland, Crime, Human Rights Section 57(2) provides that a member of the Scottish Executive has no power to do any act so far as it is incompatible with any of the Convention rights. It is not open to the court if this subsection is breached to assess what the consequences of any particular violation of an individual's Convention rights should be. Parliament has decided that members of the Scottish Executive, including the Lord Advocate, should have no power to do acts that are incompatible with any of the Convention rights. Scotland Act 1998 57(2) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Pisaniello And Others -v- Italy 45290/99; [2002] ECHR 707; 45290/99; [2002] ECHR 713 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pincova And Pinc -v- The Czech Republic 36548/97; [2002] ECHR 706; [2002] ECHR 712; [2010] ECHR 588 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Koral -v- Poland 52518/99; [2002] ECHR 700; 52518/99 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] Â Lisiak -v- Poland 37443/97; 37443/97 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Pisaniello And Others -v- Italy 45290/99; 45290/99 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Â Pietilainen -v- Finland 35999/97 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award Â Koral -v- Poland 52518/99; [2002] ECHR 706 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] Â Lisiak -v- Poland 37443/97; [2002] ECHR 702; 37443/97; [2002] ECHR 708 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Piechota -v- Poland 40330/98; 40330/98 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected Â Â Muller -v- Switzerland; ECHR 5-Nov-2002 - 41202/98; [2002] ECHR 709 Â Pietilainen -v- Finland 35999/97; [2002] ECHR 705; [2002] ECHR 711 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Allan -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 5-Nov-2002 - Times, 12 November 2002; 48539/99; [2002] ECHR 697; [2002] ECHR 702 Â Wynen -v- Belgium 32576/96; [2002] ECHR 709; [2002] ECHR 715 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Yousef -v- The Netherlands [2003] 1 FLR 210; 33711/96; [2002] ECHR 710; (2003) 36 EHRR 20; [2002] ECHR 716 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Children In "judicial decisions where the rights under article 8 of parents and of a child are at stake, the child's rights must be the paramount consideration." European Convention on Human Rights 8.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ghaidan -v- Godin-Mendoza [2003] 2 WLR 1533; Times, 14 November 2002; Gazette, 09 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1533; [2003] Ch 380 5 Nov 2002 CA Kennedy, Buxton, Keene LJJ Discrimination, Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights, Housing The applicant sought to succeed to the tenancy of his deceased homosexual partner as his partner rather than as a member of his family. Held: A court is bound by any decision within the normal hierachy of domestic authority as to the meaning of an article of the Convention, in the same way as it is bound by such a decision as to the meaning of purely domestic law. The Convention must be construed as a living instrument. The decision in Fitzpatrick should be revisited. Sexual orientation is now clearly recognised as an impermissible ground of discrimination. Such discrimination need not be analysed as a form of sex discrimination, but rather more generally, following Salgueiro. Paragraph 2 clearly infringed the Convention. It is the duty of the courts to protect minorities. Buxton LJ held that: "But I have no hesitation in saying that issues of discrimination, which it is conceded we are concerned with in this case, do have high constitutional importance, and are issues that the courts should not shrink from. In such cases, deference has only a minor role to play." Rent Act 1977 Sch 1 Para 2 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 12 Art 14 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â A -v- Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police and Another Times, 14 November 2002; Gazette, 09 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1584; [2003] ICR 161 5 Nov 2002 CA Kennedy, Buxton, Keene LJJ Discrimination, Police, Employment, European, Human Rights The appellant had undergone a male to female sex change, but was refused employment by the respondent before the Human Rights Act came into effect. Held: Although the Human Rights Act could not apply, the act was in breach of the Equal Treatment Directive and discrimination. The 1999 regulations were incompatible with the provisions of the Directive. The respondent said that it was a requirement of the job that an officer be ready to search a person of the same sex, under the 1984 Act. Following Goodwin, it was no longer permissible to treat the applicant other than as a female. It is now necessary to apply the law as developed by the European convention jurisprudence. It was necessary to decide first what is "the appellant's legal gender". There had been gender reassignment surgery and the Court concluded that the appellant had become female. Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC) (OJ 1976 L39/40) - Sex Discrimination Act 1975 Part II - Sex Discrimination (Gender Re-Assignment) Regulations 1999 (1999 No 1102) - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 54 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Laidin -c- France 43191/98; [2002] ECHR 701; [2002] ECHR 707 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gorka -v- Poland 55106/00 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Demuth -v- Switzerland 38743/97; [2002] ECHR 704 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Media The court considered the licensing system for television broadcasts in Switzerland and concluded that it was capable of contributing to the quality and balance of programmes through the powers conferred on the government. It was therefore consistent with the third sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 10. The Court emphasised the margin of appreciation afforded to domestic authorities in this context, and stated that the degree of scrutiny of the executive's decision may be less severe where what is concerned is commercial speech. European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Demir -v- Austria 35437/97; [2002] ECHR 698; 35437/97 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-2 ; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] Â Serghides And Christoforou -v- Cyprus 44730/98; [2002] ECHR 708; [2003] ECHR 276; 44730/98; [2002] ECHR 714; [2003] ECHR 276; [2011] ECHR 1265 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings ; Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to access to court ; Just satisfaction reserved [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Piechota -v- Poland 40330/98; [2002] ECHR 704; 40330/98; [2002] ECHR 710 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Demir -v- Austria 35437/97; [2002] ECHR 703 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-2 ; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] Â Gorka -v- Poland [2002] ECHR 699; 55106/00; [2002] ECHR 705 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Serghides And Christoforou -v- Cyprus 44730/98; 44730/98 5 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings ; Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to access to court ; Just satisfaction reserved Â Regina (Pearson) -v- Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and Another Times, 18 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2482 (Admin) 6 Nov 2002 QBD Maurice Kay J Road Traffic, Human Rights, Criminal Practice The appellant challenged the fact that the details of his conviction for driving with excess alcohol had not been removed from his driving licence despite it being a spent conviction under the 1974 Act. The result was that he had been unable to find work as a driver. Held: The retention of the records was not a breach of the applicant's human right to privacy. The article was not engaged, although he might have considered an action for breach of statutory duty. The claimant objected to having to effectively disclose a road traffic conviction to a new employer where though it would be spent under the 1974 Act, the 1988 Act required details of it to remain on his driving licence. Held: Article 8 was not engaged. Maurice Kay J spoke of the 1974 Act: 'The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act confers certain privileges . . It does not attempt to go beyond the grant of those limited privileges to provide a right of confidentiality in respect of spent convictions. While the 1974 Act in some respects may place an individual with spent convictions in the same position as someone with no convictions, it does not do so by rendering the convictions confidential; it does so simply by putting in place a regime which protects an individual from being prejudiced by the existence of such convictions. For these reasons I reject the submission that the 1974 Act renders the appellant's convictions confidential." Road Traffic Act 1988 44(1) 45(7) - European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 - Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 - Road Traffic Offenders Act 1974 45(7) - European Convention on Human Rights 8 [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (on the application of Abassi and Another) -v- Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another; CA 6-Nov-2002 - Times, 08 November 2002; Gazette, 06 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1598; [2002] All ER (D) 70; [2003] UKHR 76 Â Â Regina (Abbasi) -v- Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; CA 6-Nov-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1598; [2003] UKHRR 76; Times, 08 November 2002; [2002] All ER (D) 70 Â J and B [2002] EWCA Civ 1661 7 Nov 2002 CA Criminal Practice, Family, Human Rights The Crown prosecution service sought judicial review of a decision by the registrar of marriages to celebrate the marriage between the parties. He was due to face trial for murder, and she was to give evidence against him. Held: The registrar should be allowed to continue and to celebrate the marriage. It could not be said that the defendant was doing this to attempt to avoid liability for a serious crime. He might do other things also such as calling witnesses. "The right to marry has always been a right recognised by the laws of this country long before the Human Rights Act came into force. The right of course is also enshrined in article 12 of the Convention. It has more recently been held that prisoners are not to be denied that right in the cases cited by the judge. The right, furthermore, must not be denied to B who has indeed born a child to J. It seems to me that the right of marriage carries with it the incidences of marriage, including that the wife may not be compelled to give evidence against her husband or vice versa. " 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Hans Eigil Madsen -v- Denmark 58341/00; [2002] ECHR 855 7 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) -v- Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages and Another Times, 14 November 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003 7 Nov 2002 CA Dame Butler-Sloss President, Waller LJ, Sir Philip Otton Family, Prisons, Evidence, Human Rights The prisoner awaited trial. Among the prosecution witnesses was his partner. They now sought to marry. The applicant sought to prevent the marriage on the basis that this would make her non-compellable as a witness. Held: Public policy considerations did not apply to prevent the marriage. The duty on the registrar to issue a certificate was absolute. Public policy might provide a reason, but did not in this case. Entering into a lawful marriage could not be an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The right to marry is a human right, and it was not for the prison governor to exercise his discretion to prevent it, since such a discretion could not be exercised save on public policy grounds. Marriage Act 1949 27A(3) 31(2) - European Convention on Human Rights 12 Â Ferreira Da Nave -c- Portugal 49671/99; [2002] ECHR 713; [2002] ECHR 719 7 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â C. Srl -c- Italie 36112/97; [2002] ECHR 711; [2002] ECHR 717 7 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ozel -c- Turquie 42739/98; [2002] ECHR 715; [2002] ECHR 721 7 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Visca -c- Italie 36734/97; [2002] ECHR 719; [2002] ECHR 725 7 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ciccone -v- Italy 38043/97; [2002] ECHR 712; [2002] ECHR 718 7 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Franceschetti -v- Italy 35001/97; [2002] ECHR 714; [2002] ECHR 720 7 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rados And Others -v- Croatia 45435/99; 45435/99 7 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) ; Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to eleven sets of proceedings ; No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to two sets of proceedings ; No violation of Art. 13 with regard to pending proceedings ; Violation of Art. 13 with regard to concluded proceedings ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Veeber -v- Estonia (No 1) 37571/97; [2002] ECHR 717; 37571/97; [2002] ECHR 723 7 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection allowed (ratione temporis) ; Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion) ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Not necessary to examine Art. 13 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Holland (Executor of) -v- Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2002] UKSC SPC00350; [2003] WTLR 207 8 Nov 2002 SCIT Inheritance Tax, Human Rights The parties had lived together for many years as man and wife without being married. After the man's death, the executor sought exemption of the estate from Inheritance Tax under the spouse exemption. Held: The application for exemption failed. Tax laws contain many intersecting provisions, and were explicit as to when a couple were to be treated as married. The man had died before the Human Rights Act came into effect, but the assessemenst were made after. The courts had to look at the applicable law at the date of death. SCIT INHERITANCE TAX – exemption for transfers between spouses – whether exemption also applies to transfers between persons who are not legally married but who have lived together as husband and wife – no – whether the word spouse includes someone who is not legally married – no – whether section 3 of Human Rights Act 1998 applies to a death before 2 October 2000 where a notice of determination is issued by the Inland Revenue after that date – no – if wrong on that last conclusion, have appellant's Convention rights been violated? - Respondents agreed that facts fell within Arts 8 and 14 of Convention and Art 1 of First Protocol and that there was a difference in treatment between the Appellant and married persons - whether married persons and unmarried persons in an analogous situation – no – whether difference in treatment objectively justified – yes – appeal dismissed - IHTA 1984 s 18 – HRA 1998 s 3 and Sch 1 Arts 8 and 14 and First Protocol Art 1. Inheritance Tax Act 1984 18 [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Cumpsty) -v- The Rent Service Times, 05 December 2002 8 Nov 2002 QBD Pichford J Housing, Benefits, Human Rights The claimant sought to challenge the way the respondent selected the local reference rent. Held: The determination of the rent was a determination of his civil rights and obligations, and the claimant was entitled to a fair trial. However the Rent Officer was an independent and impartial tribunal, and, provided the Officer gave sufficient reasons for his decision, the procedure did not infringe the claimant's human rights. European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 - Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 (1997 No 1984) Â S Sulejmanovic Et Autres Et Sejdovic Et Sulejmanovic -c- Italie 57574/00; [2002] ECHR 727 8 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Benzan -v- Croatia 62912/00; [2002] ECHR 720; 62912/00; [2002] ECHR 726 8 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (H) -v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority Times, 25 November 2002; Gazette, 16 January 2003 11 Nov 2002 QBD McCombe J Human Rights, Administrative The applicant claimed for damages having been injured. All the information requested by the Authority had been received, but the Authority unreasonably delayed settling the claim. The claimant sought damages under the Human Rights Act. Held: The correct approach would have been to seek an order requiring the Authority to make a decision within a certain time. The Authority had requested certain information which was irrelevant to its determination. The court ordered the Authority to make a determination within 28 days, and the Article 8 application was not to be pursued. European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 Â Bakova -v- Slovakia 47227/99; [2002] ECHR 722; 47227/99; [2002] ECHR 728 12 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zvolsky And Zvolska -v- Czech Republic 46129/99; [2002] ECHR 732; [2002] ECHR 738 12 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Havala -v- Slovakia 47804/99; [2002] ECHR 726; 47804/99; [2002] ECHR 732 12 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Beles And Others -v- Czech Republic 47273/99; [2002] ECHR 723; [2002] ECHR 729 12 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Butel -c- France 49544/99; [2002] ECHR 724; [2002] ECHR 730 12 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ploski -v- Poland 26761/95; [2002] ECHR 729; [2003] I PLR 120; [2002] ECHR 735; [2011] ECHR 1288 12 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Prisons Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings The claimant had been in prison on remand when his mother died. He was refused permission to attend her funeral. His father then died, and he was again refused permission to attend. Held. A prisoner continues to enjoy the right to family life despite his imprisonment. The court was aware of the problems of a financial and logistical nature caused by escorted leave. However, taking into account the seriousness of what is at stake, namely refusing an individual the right to attend the funerals of his parent, the court was of the view that the respondent state could have refused attendance only if there had been compelling reasons and if no alternative solution, like escorted leave could have been found. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Wessels-Bergervoet -v- The Netherlands 34462/97; (2004) 38 EHRR 793 12 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Lundevall -v- Sweden 38629/97; [2002] ECHR 727; [2002] ECHR 733 12 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Salomonsson -v- Sweden 38978/97; [2002] ECHR 730; [2002] ECHR 736 12 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dory -v- Sweden 28394/95; [2002] ECHR 725; [2002] ECHR 731 12 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Matouskova -v- Slovakia 39752/98; [2002] ECHR 728; 39752/98; [2002] ECHR 734 12 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â PK (Article 8, Return, Marriage-Refugee) Democratic Republic of Congo; IAT 13-Nov-2002 - [2002] UKIAT 05220 Â West, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Parole Board Times, 21 November 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1641; [2003] 1 WLR 705 13 Nov 2002 CA Simon Brown, Sedley, Hale LJJ Prisons, Human Rights The prisoner had been released on licence, but then recalled and re-arrested it being alleged that he was in breach of his conditions. His solicitors sought to represent him at the hearing of the parole board which considered whether to recommend his re-release. He complained that the refusal to allow representation infringed his right to a fair trial. Held: The decision as to whether he should again be released on licence was not a determination of criminal charges so as to engage his human rights, and create a right to be represented. The decision related to public safety, and did not involve any punitive element. Unlike in Ezeh, no further change was being considered. The Board "plainly have the power under section 32 of the Act to adopt whatever procedures they think necessary". Criminal Justice Act 1991 39(5) - European Convention on Human Rights Art 5 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Julien -c- France 42276/98; [2002] ECHR 733; [2002] ECHR 739 14 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mouisel -v- France 67263/01; [2002] ECHR 734; [2002] ECHR 740; [2011] ECHR 2109 14 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Prisons The applicant had been sentenced to 50 years' imprisonment for several offences. He had leukemia and was to receive chemotherapy in hospital. He complained of the conditions to which he was subjected during the hospital visits, including the behaviour of the guards, and the fact that he had been chained to the hospital bed. Medical reports recommended that he be transferred to a specialist clinic, but there was delay in acting on that recommendation. Subsequently, he was released on licence, subject to the condition of obtaining medical treatment. He made two main complaints of breach of Article 3. First, as to the failure to release him from custody in the face of the medical advice. Secondly, as to the circumstances in which he had been restrained and handcuffed. Held: The court made general observations in relation to Article 3: "The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim . . Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3" As to handcuffing, the court said: "The Court reiterates that handcuffing does not normally give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention where the measure has been imposed in connection with a lawful detention and does not entail use of force, or public exposure, exceeding what is reasonably considered necessary. In this regard, it is important to consider, for instance, whether there is a danger that the person concerned might abscond or cause injury or damage . . In the instant case, having regard to the applicant's health, to the fact that he was being taken to hospital, to the discomfort of undergoing a chemotherapy session and to his physical weakness, the Court considers that the use of handcuffs was disproportionate to the needs of security. As regards the danger presented by the applicant, and notwithstanding his criminal record, the Court notes the absence of any previous conduct or other evidence giving serious grounds to fear that there was a significant danger of his absconding or resorting to violence. Lastly, the Court notes the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture concerning the conditions in which prisoners are transferred to hospital to undergo medical examinations – conditions which, in the Committee's opinion, continue to raise problems in terms of medical ethics and respect for human dignity . . The applicant's descriptions of the conditions in which he was escorted to and from hospital do not seem very far removed from the situations causing the Committee concern in this area." European Convention on Human Rights 3 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Whitefield -v- General Medical Council Times, 29 November 2002; [2002] UKPC 62 14 Nov 2002 PC Hope of Craighead L, Sir Denis Jenry, Sir Philip Otton Human Rights, Health Professions The doctor had been allowed to continue in practice only on condition that he did not drink alcohol and that he complied with other conditions to support that restriction. He challenged it as an infringement of his human rights. Held: The conditions were in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and in the wider interest of protecting his patients. There were limits to the right to a private life, and those had not been transgressed. European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] Â Lefebvre -c- Belgique 49546/99; [2002] ECHR 747; [2002] ECHR 753 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kenes -c- Belgique 50566/99; [2002] ECHR 744; [2002] ECHR 750 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dooms Et Autres -c- Belgique 49522/99; [2002] ECHR 740; [2002] ECHR 746 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â De Plaen -c- Belgique 49797/99; [2002] ECHR 739; [2002] ECHR 745 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Boca -v- Belgium 50615/99; [2002] ECHR 735; [2002] ECHR 741 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Oren Et Shoshan -c- Belgique 49332/99; [2002] ECHR 751; [2002] ECHR 757 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â S.A. Sitram -c- Belgique 49495/99; [2002] ECHR 754; [2002] ECHR 760 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Randaxhe -c- Belgique 50172/99; [2002] ECHR 753; [2002] ECHR 759 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Teret -c- Belgique 49497/99; [2002] ECHR 756; [2002] ECHR 762 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Oval S.P.R.L. -c- Belgique 49794/99; [2002] ECHR 752; [2002] ECHR 758 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â T C U -v- Italy 31223/96 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Luciano Rossi -v- Italy 30530/96 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â L And P -v- Italy 32392/96; [2002] ECHR 745; [2002] ECHR 829; 33696/96; [2002] ECHR 751; [2002] ECHR 835 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â V T -v- Italy 30972/96 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Â Regina -v- Lyons, Parnes, Ronson, Saunders; HL 15-Nov-2002 - [2002] UKHL 44; [2003] 1 AC 976; [2002] 3 WLR 1562; [2002] BCC 968; [2003] 1 Cr App Rep 24; [2002] 4 All ER 1028; [2003] 1 Cr App R 24; [2003] HRLR 6 Â Gnecchi and Barigazzi -v- Italy 32006/96 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â L B -v- Italy 32542/96 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Â Folli Care -v- Italy; ECHR 15-Nov-2002 - 32577/96 Â D V -v- Italy 32589/96 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Maltoni -v- Italy 31548/96 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Cau -v- Italy 34819/97; [2002] ECHR 736; 34819/97; [2002] ECHR 742 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fabbrini -v- Italy 33115/96; [2002] ECHR 741; 33115/96; [2002] ECHR 747 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tona -v- Italy 33252/96; [2002] ECHR 757; 33252/96; [2002] ECHR 763 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tosi -v- Italy 33204/96; [2002] ECHR 758; 33204/96; [2002] ECHR 764 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ciliberti -v- Italy 30879/96; [2002] ECHR 737; 30879/96; [2002] ECHR 743 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ciliberti -v- Italy 30879/96 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Luciano Rossi -v- Italy 30530/96; [2002] ECHR 748; 30530/96; [2002] ECHR 754 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â V T -v- Italy 30972/96; [2002] ECHR 759; 30972/96; [2002] ECHR 765 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â T C U -v- Italy 31223/96; [2002] ECHR 755; 31223/96; [2002] ECHR 761 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gnecchi And Barigazzi -v- Italy 32006/96; [2002] ECHR 743; 32006/96; [2002] ECHR 749 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â L B -v- Italy 32542/96; [2002] ECHR 746; 32542/96; [2002] ECHR 752 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Folli Care -v- Italy 32577/96; [2002] ECHR 742; 32577/96; [2002] ECHR 748 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â D V -v- Italy 32589/96; [2002] ECHR 738; 32589/96; [2002] ECHR 744 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Maltoni -v- Italy 31548/96; [2002] ECHR 749; 31548/96; [2002] ECHR 755 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Merico -v- Italy 31129/96; [2002] ECHR 750; 31129/96; [2002] ECHR 756 15 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Yildirim -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1766 18 Nov 2002 CA Immigration, Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Nadine Delson -v- London Borough of Lambeth [2002] EWCA Civ 1894 19 Nov 2002 CA Housing, Human Rights Application for permission to appeal against refusal of second application for permission to apply for judicial review. Held: It was not sustainable to suggest that the section was incompatible with the cliamant's human rights. Leave to appeal was refused. Housing Act 1985 93(2) 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Regina (on the application of Smith) -v- Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council and another Gazette, 28 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2400 (Admin) 19 Nov 2002 Admn Burton J Human Rights, Housing The applicants sought to argue that the attempt to evict him from the caravan site he occupied infringed his article 8 and 14 rights. Though the Isaacs case had decided there was good reason to deny security, he argued that was no longer applicable, since many gypsies did not now seek a roving life. Held: The onus of justifying an interference in the applicant's human rights lay on the authorities. However, other arrangements did exist for those who wanted a more settled life. The earlier position remained appropriate. The different treatment of the applicants was justified in the pursuance of a legitimate aim. Caravan Sites Act 1968 Part 1 - European Convention on Human Rights 8 14 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Cronin, Regina (on The Application of) -v- Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Another Times, 28 November 2002; Gazette, 30 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2568 (Admin); [2003] 1 WLR 752 20 Nov 2002 Admn Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ, Hallett, Stanley Burnton JJ Magistrates, Police, Human Rights, Magistrates The applicant had had his premises searched. He sought to challenge the basis on which search warrant had been granted. He argued that under the Convention, it was necessary for the magistrates to provide a written record of the reasons for granting the warrant. Held: Where the information laid was itself sufficient to account for the warrant a magistrate could be assumed to have acted upon it, and no further reasons were required to be noted. Warrants were often issued under conditions where such a requirement would be unreasonable. Here the magistrate would only have repeated the contents of the information. Where a magistrate elicited further information from the officer which affected the decision, it was necessary for that to be recorded. Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 23(3) - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 Art 8 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8 15 16 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney -v- London Borough of Havering) Times, 02 December 2002; Gazette, 06 February 2003; [2002] EWCA Crim 2558 20 Nov 2002 CACD Rose LJ, Hughes, Davis JJ Intellectual Property, Crime, Human Rights The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof. Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to statutory exceptions. To place a legal (persuasive) burden of proof on the defendant is possible under statute, but is exceptional, and requires clear words. Here, parliament had used the word 'prove' rather than 'show' in describing the burden on the defendant to establish a defence. The defence did not allege dishonesty. Having regard not only to the interests of the accused and the public, the imposition of legal burden on the accused, in the section is necessary, justified and proportionate. There is a heavy burden on those justifying a reverse legal burden of proof, but that burden was discharged here. Trade Marks Act 1994 92(5) 94 - European Convention on Human Rights 6.2 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Sw V The United Kingdom 33755/06; [2008] ECHR 1530; [2009] ECHR 1728 22 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Cairns; Regina -v- Zaldi, Regina -v- Chaudary Times, 02 December 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Crim 2838; [2002] 1 WLR 796 22 Nov 2002 CACD Keene, LJ, Forbes, Rant JJ Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Criminal Evidence The defendants applied for the defence statements of co-defendants to be disclosed. A co-defendant was to give evidence for the Crown, and they sought to have it excluded as unreliable. Held: The 1996 created a duty of secondary disclosure, where a defence statement might be of assistance to the co-defendants. Actual disclosure remained for the judgement of the prosecution. A court was not under a duty not to admit evidence which might be in whole or in part unreliable. It was necessary to construe legislation to accord with a defendant's human rights, and the statements should have been disclosed. Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 7(2) - Human Rights Act 1998 3(1) 1 Citers Â Â Regina -v- Lichniak; HL 25-Nov-2002 - Times, 26 November 2002; Gazette, 06 February 2003; [2002] UKHL 47; [2003] 1 AC 903; [2003] HRLR 8; [2003] 1 Cr App R 33; 13 BHRC 437; [2002] 4 All ER 1122; [2003] UKHRR 62; [2002] 3 WLR 1834 Â Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson; HL 25-Nov-2002 - Times, 26 November 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] UKHL 46; [2002] 3 WLR 180; [2003] 1 AC 837; [2003] HRLR 7; (2003) 13 BHRC 450; [2003] UKHRR 112; [2003] 1 Cr App R 32; [2002] 4 All ER 1089 Â E and Others -v- The United Kingdom Times, 04 December 2002; Gazette, 16 January 2003; 33218/96; [2002] ECHR 763; [2002] ECHR 769 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Local Government The four applicants had been abused by their stepfather, and sought investigation of the local authority for failing to protect them. They had been compensated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in part, but now sought a remedy from the local authority ombudsman who denied jurisdiction. Held: Social services should have been aware of the situation, and of the abuser's history. The pattern of lack of investigation communication and co-operation by them influenced the course of events, and article 3 had been infringed. The Ombudsman's lack of jurisdiction had no remedy in domestic law, and certain grievances of the complainants were unresolved. Article 13 had been infringed. "The Government submitted that it was not correct to assert that this House of Lords decision [in X v Bedfordshire, M v Newham, et al] prevented all claims in negligence against local authorities in the exercise of their child protection duties, and argued that it could not be regarded as beyond doubt that these applicants would have failed as, in the case of these applicants, the social services arguably were negligent in the way they approached operational, as well as policy, matters." European Convention on Human Rights 3 13 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Varga -v- Slovakia 41384/98; [2002] ECHR 772; [2002] ECHR 779 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Koncek -v- Slovakia 41263/98; [2002] ECHR 768; [2002] ECHR 774 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kececi -v- Turkey 38588/97; [2002] ECHR 766; 38588/97; [2002] ECHR 772 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kinay And Kinay -v- Turkey 31890/96; [2002] ECHR 773 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] Â OzZkan Kilic -c- Turquie 27209/95; [2002] ECHR 774 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Yakar -v- Turkey 36189/97; [2002] ECHR 773; 36189/97; 36189/97; [2002] ECHR 780 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kinay and Kinay -v- Turkey 31890/96; [2002] ECHR 767 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] Â Buchen -c- Republique Tcheque 36541/97; [2002] ECHR 760; [2002] ECHR 766 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Canciovici Et Autres -c- Roumanie 32926/96; [2002] ECHR 761; [2002] ECHR 767 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dragnescu -c- Roumanie 32936/96; [2002] ECHR 762; [2002] ECHR 768 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gavrus -c- Roumanie 32977/96; [2002] ECHR 765; [2002] ECHR 771 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kuray -c- Turquie 36971/97; [2002] ECHR 769; [2002] ECHR 775 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nagy -c- Roumanie 32268/96; [2002] ECHR 771; [2002] ECHR 777 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kececi -v- Turkey 38588/97 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Koncek -v- Slovakia 41263/98 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Varga -v- Slovakia 41384/98 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Ozkan Kilic -v- Turkey 27211/95; [2002] ECHR 778; 27209/95 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Mosteanu Et Autres -c- Roumanie 33176/96; [2002] ECHR 770; [2002] ECHR 776 26 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mann Singh V France 24479/07; [2008] ECHR 1523 27 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Gurung, Pun & Thapa -v- Ministry of Defence Times, 28 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2463 (Admin) 27 Nov 2002 QBD McCombe J Armed Forces, Human Rights, Discrimination, Immigration The applicants were British Nepalese soldiers who had been imprisoned by the Japanese in the second world war. They challenged the decision of the respondent in November 2000 to exclude them from a compensation scheme, but to allow other British nationals from India who had also been imprisoned. Held: The decision to exclude them was irrational. It offended the common law principle of equality before the law, and was discriminatory under the Convention. It was permissible for the government not to seek compensation on behalf of nationals of other states which had themselves reached a settlement with Japan, but that did not apply to these claimants. Standards which may have applied in 1955 need not be applied now. The ABCIFER case was to de distinguished because that case did not involve any element of race discrimination as did this. European Convention on Human Rights 8 14 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â S, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Department of Health [2002] EWHC 2522 (Admin) 27 Nov 2002 Admn Health, Human Rights Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 11 [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (S) -v- Mental Health Tribunal and Another; QBD 27-Nov-2002 - Times, 06 December 2002; Gazette, 30 January 2003 Â (Un-named) 34742/97 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Informationsverein Lentia -v- Austria 37093/97; 37093/97 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â F.M. -c- Italie 43621/98; [2002] ECHR 778; [2002] ECHR 784 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Radaj -v- Poland 29537/95; 35453/97 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Walter -v- Austria 34994/97 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list ; Friendly settlement Â Radaj -v- Poland 35453/97; [2002] ECHR 789; 29537/95 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â (Un-named) 57206/00 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Regina -v- HM Advocate and The Advocate General for Scotland Times, 06 December 2002; [2002] UKPC D3; [2003] 2 WLR 317; 2003 SCCR 19; [2004] 1 AC 462; 2002 GWD 39-1280; 2003 SC (PC) 21; [2003] UKHRR 1; 2003 SLT 4 28 Nov 2002 PC Steyn, Hope of Craighead, Clyde, Rodger of Earlsferry, Walker of Gestingthorpe LL Criminal Practice, Scotland, Human Rights (The High Court of Justiciary) The prosecution had accepted that the matter had been the subject of unreasonable delay, but wished to continue. The defendant sought a plea in bar, on the basis that continuing would infringe his rights. Held: Once it was accepted that the delay took the prosecution outside the defendant's right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, the prosecution must fail. Section 57 simply came into effect. The reasonable time provisions of the convention must be applied throughout the proceedings until they were determined. The Scottish system had accepted rigorous time limits, and they must be applied. This case would reinforce the need for compliance. Scotland Act 1998 57(2) - European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 - Human Rights Act 1998 1 Cites 1 Citers [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] Â The Former King of Greece and Others -v- Greece 25701/94 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - claim rejected Â The Former King of Greece and Others -v- Greece 25701/94; 25701/94; [2000] ECHR 640; [2002] ECHR 790 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Virgulti -v- Italy 57206/00; [2002] ECHR 776; 57206/00; [2002] ECHR 782 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) The applicant had, over several years, sought to enforce court orders authorising the eviction of a former tenant, but had not been assisted by the police. She claimed damages. The respondent settled, paying damages, but without any admission of liability. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â AMM -v- Italy 34742/97; [2002] ECHR 775; 34742/97; [2002] ECHR 781 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Informationsverein Lentia -v- Austria 37093/97; [2002] ECHR 779; 37093/97; [2002] ECHR 785 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Radaj -v- Poland 29537/95 ; 35453/97; 29537/95 ; 35453/97 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Walter -v- Austria 34994/97; [2002] ECHR 785; 34994/97; [2002] ECHR 791 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list ; Friendly settlement [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Radaj -v- Poland 29537/95; [2002] ECHR 783 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Massimo Pugliese -c- Italie 45789/99; [2002] ECHR 782; [2002] ECHR 788 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marziano -c- Italie 45313/99; [2002] ECHR 781; [2002] ECHR 787 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lavents -c- Lettonie 58442/00; [2002] ECHR 780; [2002] ECHR 786; [2009] ECHR 2245 28 Nov 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (Howard League for Penal Reform) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; QBD 29-Nov-2002 - Times, 05 December 2002; Gazette, 16 January 2003; Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2497 (Admin); [2003] 1 FLR 484 Â Regina (Mohamad) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 12 December 2002 29 Nov 2002 QBD Munby J Immigration, Human Rights The applicant challenged the refusal of his plea for asylum. He was an Iraqi Kurd. The order required him to be returned to Iraq. Held: Notwithstanding the apparent terms of the order, he would in fact be returned to the Kurdish area of Iraq, where he would be safe from any form of persecution other than from members of his girlfriend's family. Such a threat was not a Convention threat, and the order for return stood. Nor was the finding that the threat failed to reach the threshold where his human rights were engaged, incorrect. European Convention on Human Rights& Art 3 1 Cites Â Regina (U) -v- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Regina (R) -v- Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary Times, 10 December 2002; [2003] 1 WLR 897; [2002] EWHC 2486 (Admin) 29 Nov 2002 Admn Latham LJ, Field J Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Police In each case the youth aged 15 had been given a warning after admitting a sexual assault, and a decision had been made not to prosecute. On accepting the warnings, they had then been required to place their names on the sex offenders register, but this had not been explained to them when asked about accepting the warning. Held: In one case, the acceptance of guilt was equivocal in any event. The placing of a name on the sex offender's register added a public dimension to the consequences of accepting guilt, but without the putative offender having the opportunity of a trial. To have this happen without the consequences being explained, and by an administrative procedure was unfair. Held: The warning procedure was not one requiring the consent of the youth (as opposed to a caution of an adult) European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 - Crime and Disorder Act 1998 65 66 [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Nadarajah) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 2595 2 Dec 2002 Admn Stanley Burnton J Immigration, Human Rights The Claimant was a Tamil from Sri Lanka claiming asylum. He was married in 1991; his wife was also Tamil. In 1995 his claim for asylum in Germany failed. What then happened was disputed. The Claimant said that he voluntarily returned to Sri Lanka, where he was imprisoned and tortured; that his wife procured his release, following which he fled to the UK. The Secretary of State believes that the Claimant never left Germany, but simply went to ground before illegally and clandestinely entering the UK in 1998. After his arrest as an illegal entrant he claimed asylum. At that time, his asylum claim in Germany was still subject to an appeal to the German courts. When he arrived in the UK, he concealed the fact that he had previously applied for asylum in Germany or anywhere else; that he had done so was discovered when fingerprints were taken. The Home Secretary sought to remove him to Germany as a safe third country. Judicial review proceedings were begun on his behalf, but were held in abeyance pending the appeals in Adan and Aitsegeur [2001] 2 AC 477 and Yogathas [2002] UKHL 41 [2002] 4 All ER 785. In August 2001, the Claimant's wife entered this country and claimed asylum. In November 2001, the Home Secretary certified the Claimant's asylum claim under section 11 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In January 2002, the Claimant's solicitors withdrew the first judicial review claim on account of judicial decisions on third country certification (in the case of Yogathas that of the Court of Appeal)." 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Â Chase -v- Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd; CA 3-Dec-2002 - Times, 31 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1772; [2003] EMLR 218; [2003] EMLR 11 Â Berger -v- France 48221/99; [2002] ECHR 786; [2002] ECHR 792 3 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Smoleanu -v- Romania 30324/96; [2002] ECHR 790; 30324/96; [2006] ECHR 359; [2006] ECHR 359; [2002] ECHR 796 3 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; No violation of P1-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nowicka -v- Poland 30218/96; [2002] ECHR 789; [2002] ECHR 795 3 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Prisons Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-1 ; Violation of Art. 8 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Not all interferences with respect for private and family life during lawful detention will engage article 8. Normal restrictions and limitations consequent on prison life and discipline in these circumstances will not constitute in principle a violation of this article. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Debbasch -c- France 49392/99; [2002] ECHR 787; [2002] ECHR 793 3 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lindner Et Hammermayer -c- Roumanie 35671/97; [2002] ECHR 788; [2006] ECHR 349; [2006] ECHR 349; [2002] ECHR 794; [2011] ECHR 610 3 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hoppe -v- Germany 28422/95; (2002) 38 EHRR 285; [2003] 1 FLR 384; [2002] ECHR 793; [2002] ECHR 799 5 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Children Hudoc No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 6-1 The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing in appeal proceedings concerning his right of access to his daughter contrary to article 6(1). Held: "The court recalls further that article 6(1) requires in principle that a hearing be held. The question therefore arises whether a departure from this principle could, in the circumstances of the case, be justified at the appeal stage. The manner in which article 6 of the Convention applies to proceedings before courts of appeal depends on the special features of the domestic proceedings viewed as a whole. Even where the court of appeal has jurisdiction both over the facts and in law, article 6 does not always require a right to a public hearing, irrespective of the nature of the issues to be decided. The publicity requirement is certainly one of the means whereby confidence in the courts is maintained. However, there are other considerations, including the right to a trial within a reasonable time and the related need for an expeditious handling of the courts' case load, which must be taken into account in determining the necessity of public hearings in the proceedings subsequent to the trial at first instance level. Provided a public hearing has been held at first instance, the absence of a hearing before a second or third instance may accordingly be justified by the special features of the proceedings at issue." and "in cases concerning a person's relationship with his or her child, there is a duty to exercise exceptional diligence in view of the risk that the passage of time may result in a de facto determination of the matter." European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Isobel Robertson -v- Lorna Anderson Times, 02 January 2003; [2002] ScotCS 312 5 Dec 2002 IHCS Lord MacLean, Kord Reed, Lord Weir Scotland, Contract, Human Rights, Scotland The parties had agreed to share any winnings from their Bingo activities. One sought to reject the contract as an unenforceable gaming contract. Held: It had been suggested that there had been no intention to create legally binding obligations. A promise given in purely social circumstances might not normally be found to be intended to create a legally binding contract, but it was necessary to look at the actual intentions of the parties, and such an intention might be inferred. It could be inferred here. As to gaming contracts, neither party was betting with the other. The contract related to gaming but was not itself a gaming contract. 1 Cites [ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ] Â Yalcin Kucuk -c- Turquie 28493/95; [2002] ECHR 795; [2002] ECHR 801 5 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mahmut Demir -c- Turquie 22280/93; [2002] ECHR 794; [2002] ECHR 800 5 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dalkilic -c- Turquie 25756/94; [2002] ECHR 792; [2002] ECHR 798 5 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Craxi -c- Italie 34896/97; [2002] ECHR 791; [2002] ECHR 797 5 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (N) -v- Dr M and Others Times, 12 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1789; [2003] 1 WLR 562; [2003] Lloyd's Rep Med 81; (2003) 72 BMLR 81; [2003] 1 FCR 124; [2003] 1 FLR 667; [2003] Fam Law 160 6 Dec 2002 CA Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Rix, Dyson LJJ Health, Human Rights, Judicial Review The patient refused consent to treatment in the form of injection of drugs, which her psychiatrists considered to be necessary. Held: Treatment of this nature infringed the patients rights, and was not to be ordered without clear reason. The doctors had to show that it was a medical necessity, and this had to be shown convincingly. The standard of proof was high, though not the criminal standard. To comply with Human Rights law, they also had to show that it was in her best interests. This is a wider test than medical necessity. Despite the applicant's own expert's opinion, the standard of proof had been reached in this case. Dyson LJ said that cross-examination in judicial review cases should be ordered only if it is necessary to enable the court to determine factual issues for itself. European Convention on Human Rights 3 - Mental Health Act 1983 58(3)(b) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Shaw (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Vicky Construction Ltd Times, 27 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2659 (Ch); [2002] STC 1544 6 Dec 2002 ChD Ferris J Human Rights, Taxes Management, Construction The General Commissioner had held that an inspector's refusal to renew a certificate allowing the taxpayer construction company to pay its sub-contractors without deducting income tax, infringed that company's rights. The inspector appealed. Held: The certificate itself would be a possession within the Convention, but the right to have it re-issued was not such a right in property. The requirement to deduct sums for tax did deprive the sub-contractors of a possession. However a state enjoys a wide margin of appreciation in taxation matters. An interference with property to ensure payment of tax could be justified. The provisions were not arbitrary or excessive, and need not be read down to make them compliant. The decision of the general commissioners was wrong and was set aside. Ferris J said: "It became notorious during the latter part of last century that many sub-contractors engaged in the construction industry disappeared without settling their tax liabilities with a consequential loss of revenue to the Exchequer. In order to remedy that abuse Parliament enacted legislation going back to the early 1970s under which a contractor is obliged except in the case of a sub-contractor who holds a relevant certificate to deduct and pay over to the Revenue a proportion of all payments made to the sub-contractor in respect of the labour content of any sub-contract. The amount so deducted and paid over is in due course allowed as a credit against the sub-contractors liability to the Revenue. The need to make and pay over such deductions can be an irritation to the contractor obliged to carry out this exercise. It also adversely effects the cash flow of the sub-contractor. Accordingly it is advantageous to a sub-contractor to have a statutory certificate rendering such a deduction unnecessary. The provision of such a certificate tends to make the sub-contractor holding the certificate a more attractive party for the contractor to deal with and by enabling the sub-contractor to receive the contract price without deduction improves the sub-contractor's case flow. The legislation which governs the present regime is now contained in sections 559 to 567 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The basic requirement is imposed by section 559. It imposes the general requirement on a contractor to make deductions from payments made to a sub-contractor and to pay over to the Revenue the amounts deducted. The current percentage required to be deducted is 18 per cent. The section also prescribes how such amounts are to be treated in the hands of the Revenue. Section 561 provides an exception from the requirements of section 559. In the case of a payment made to a sub-contractor who holds a certificate under section 561 which is in force when the payment is made the issue of such a certificate is governed by section 561 itself. In order to be entitled to the grant of a certificate the taxpayer must satisfy certain conditions. In the case of a company the conditions are those set out in section 565." Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 561 565 - European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Ashton, Lyons and Webber Times, 10 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 2782 6 Dec 2002 CACD Mantell LJ, Treacey, Simon JJ Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing The appellants had appealed sentences for conspiracy to murder. There had been an inordinate delay between leave to appeal having been granted, and the appeal being heard. Held: The appellants' rights had been infringed by the delay, and they had a right to redress. That could be satisfied by a reduction in the sentences of one year. This was however an exceptional case. European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka AS -v- Nomura International plc and Others; QBD 9-Dec-2002 - Times, 16 December 2002 Â Â Stephen Jordan (No 2) -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 10-Dec-2002 - 49771/99; (2003) 37 EHRR 2; [2002] ECHR 797; [2002] ECHR 803; [2001] Inquest LR 101; (2001) 11 BHRC 1 Â Dicle For The Democratic Party (Dep) of Turkey -v- Turkey 25141/94; [2002] ECHR 796; 25141/94; [2002] ECHR 802 10 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (ratione materiae) ; Violation of Art. 11 ; Not necessary to examine Arts. 9, 10 and 14 ; No violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Waite -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 10-Dec-2002 - (2002) 36 EHRR 1001; Times, 31 December 2002; 53236/99; [2002] ECHR 798; [2002] ECHR 804; [2003] Prison LR 160; (2003) 36 EHRR 54, Â Sogukpinar -c- Turquie 31153/96; [2002] ECHR 802; [2002] ECHR 808 12 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Field (Brian John); Regina -v- Young (Alfred) Times, 16 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Crim 2913; [2003] 1 WLR 882 12 Dec 2002 CACD Kay LJ, Grigson, Ouseley JJ Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing Each applicant having been convicted of indecent assaults involving children, now appealed an order banning them from working with children. Held: The orders were not penalties within article 7. The order was available in the absence of a conviction, and it was intended as a preventive measure rather than a punitive one. The section could also apply to behaviour which had occurred prior to its commencement. The mere fact that a statute depends for its application in the future on events that have happened in the past does not offend against the presumption. The Court accepted a submission by the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the court should take a more relaxed approach to a potentially retroactive element in legislation where its intended purpose was, as it clearly was to protect children. Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 28 - European Convention on Human Rights 7 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Procter and Gamble Company -v- Office for the Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Times, 28 December 2002 12 Dec 2002 ECJ Intellectual Property, European, Human Rights A case had been referred back to the Office board by the court of first instance. The applicant complained when the same panel members were listed to hear the case again, Held: The Board of Appeal exercised the same function as the examiner. When it acted, it did so as the administration of the office in exercising those powers, and thus the Board was not properly classified as a tribunal, and therefore no right of fairness to a hearing applied. Â Â Selvanayagam -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 12-Dec-2002 - Unreported, 12 December 2002; 57981/00; [2002] ECHR 857 Â Wittek -v- Germany 37290/97; [2002] ECHR 803; [2002] ECHR 809 12 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Possessions ; peaceful enjoyment of possessions ; interference {p1 1} ; proportionality ; margin of appreciation (Text in French only) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Yalcin -c- Turquie 31152/96; [2002] ECHR 804; [2002] ECHR 810 12 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sen -c- Turquie 31154/96; [2002] ECHR 801; [2002] ECHR 807 12 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Calli -c- Turquie 26543/95; [2002] ECHR 800; [2002] ECHR 806 12 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Adali -c- Turquie 31137/96; [2002] ECHR 799; [2002] ECHR 805 12 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kalegoropoulou -v- Greece and Germany Unreported, 12 December 2002; 50021/00 12 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Greek nationals had sued the German government for damages for war crimes committed in 1944. Judgment was obtained, but the judgment could be enforced against German state property in Greece only with the consent of the Minister of Justice, which could not be obtained. Proceedings to enforce the judgment without consent on the ground that the claimants were being deprived of a remedy, contrary to article 6 of the Convention, were dismissed by the Greek Court of Cassation. Held: The petition to the European Court of Human Rights was held, applying Al-Adsani, to be "manifestly ill-founded". 1 Citers Â Â Regina (Williamson and Others) -v- Secretary of State for Education and Employment; CA 12-Dec-2002 - Times, 18 December 2002; [2003] QB 1300; [2002] EWCA Civ 1926; [2003] ELR 176 Â In re McHugh Southern Ltd (in Liquidation) Times, 30 January 2003 12 Dec 2002 ChD David Donaldson QC Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights An order striking out a case for abuse by reason of the claimant's delay should only be made where the delay had lead to a situation where it was no longer possible to secure a fair hearing. Where a fair trial remained possible, the court could use some other remedy to penalise a delaying claimant. This was necessary to accord with the human right of receiving a fair trial within a reasonable time. European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 Â Ahsan Ullah, Thi Lien Do -v- Special Adjudicator, Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 18 December 2002; Gazette, 13 March 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 770; [2002] EWCA Civ 1856 16 Dec 2002 CA Lord Justice Kay, Lord Justice Dyson, Lord Phillips MR Immigration, Ecclesiastical, Human Rights The appellants challenged refusal of asylum, claiming that their return to countries which did not respect their religion, would infringe their right to freedom of religious expression. It was accepted that the applicants did not have a sufficient well founded fear of persecution in the general sense. Held: The Convention had come to regulate in part how signatory countries controlled their immigration, but controlled signatory states as to their treatment of those within their jurisdiction only. The right to control immigration might trump the human rights of those whose movement was to be controlled. The claimants sought the right to practise and preach their religions freely. The extension of Convention rights conflicted with the principle of territoriality, and had only been allowed for article 3. The present court was not required to take it further for article 9 where the interference in the exercise of that right fell short of being article 3 ill-treatment. "a removal decision to a country that does not respect article 9 rights will not infringe the 1998 Act where the nature of the interference with the right to practise religion that is anticipated in the receiving state falls short of article 3 ill-treatment. It may be that this does not differ greatly, in effect, from holding that interference with the right to practise religion in such circumstances will not result in the engagement of the Convention unless the interference is 'flagrant'." European Convention on Human Rights Art 3 Art 9 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Segal -c- Roumanie 32927/96; [2002] ECHR 815; [2004] ECHR 394; [2002] ECHR 821; [2004] ECHR 394; [2010] ECHR 1865 17 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Heidecker-Carpentier -v- France 50368/99; [2002] ECHR 817 17 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Gheorghiu -v- Romania 31678/96; [2002] ECHR 809; 31678/96; [2002] ECHR 815 17 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion, victim) ; Violation of Art. 6-1 due to lack of fair hearing ; Violation of Art. 6-1 because of right of access to court ; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 concerning allegedly retrospective application of the law ; Violation of P1-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Venema -v- The Netherlands; ECHR 17-Dec-2002 - 35731/97; (2002) 39 EHRR 102; [2002] ECHR 823; [2003] 1 FLR 552 Â Â Mitchell and Holloway -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 17-Dec-2002 - Times, 28 December 2002; 44808/98; [2002] ECHR 812; [2002] ECHR 818 Â A -v- The United Kingdom Times, 28 December 2002; 35373/97; [2002] ECHR 805; (2002) 36 EHRR 917; [2002] ECHR 811 17 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Defamation, Legal Aid, Constitutional The applicant complained that the absence of legal aid to allow a challenge what had been said about her in Parliament by way of defamation, violated her right of access to court. Held: The right to absolute parliamentary privilege was within the margin of freedom enjoyed by a nation state. The applicant was not left entirely without remedy, and the freedom of parliament was properly to be protected. As to the availability of legal aid, limited legal advice was available, and a conditional fee arrangement might also have been available. "However, the right of access to court is not absolute, but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State. In this respect, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation, although the final decision as to the observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court. It must be satisfied that the limitations applied do not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6(1) if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved." European Convention on Human Rights 6 8.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Faivre -c- France 46215/99; [2002] ECHR 808; [2002] ECHR 814 17 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Boc -c- Roumanie 33353/96; [2002] ECHR 806; [2002] ECHR 812 17 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Coste -c- France 50528/99; [2002] ECHR 807; [2002] ECHR 813 17 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Traore -c- France 48954/99; [2002] ECHR 816; [2002] ECHR 822 17 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Golea -c- Roumanie 29973/96; [2002] ECHR 810; [2004] ECHR 386; [2002] ECHR 816; [2004] ECHR 386 17 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Heidecker-Carpentier -c- France 50368/99; [2002] ECHR 811 17 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Savulescu -c- Roumanie 33631/96; [2002] ECHR 814; [2002] ECHR 820 17 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â N C -v- Italy 24952/94; 24952/94; [2001] ECHR 12; [2002] ECHR 824 18 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection dismissed (estoppel) ; No violation of Art. 5-5 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â N C -v- Italy 24952/94; 24952/94 18 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection dismissed (estoppel) ; No violation of Art. 5-5 Â Secretary of State for Health -v- Beeson, Personal Representative of [2002] EWCA Civ 1812 18 Dec 2002 CA Human Rights, Health National Assistance Act 1948 [ Bailii ] Â Â Davies -v- Health and Safety Executive; CACD 18-Dec-2002 - [2002] EWCA Crim 2949; [2003] ICR 586; [2003] IRLR 170 Â Regina (POW Trust and Al's Bar and Restaurant Limited) -v- The Chief Executive and Registrar of Companies, The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Times, 02 January 2003; Gazette, 13 March 2003; [2002] EWHC 2783 (Admin) 18 Dec 2002 QBD The Hon Mr Justice Lightman Company, Human Rights The complainants were companies fined for late delivery of their accounts. They said that the automatic imposition of the fines infringed their rights. Held: The procedure allowed a challenge in the County Court, and also the manner of the exercise of the registrar's discretion allowed application for judicial review in appropriate circumstances. The procedure did not infringe the applicants' rights. However the manual which contained the guidance as to how the registrar's discretion was to be exercised should be made public. European Convention on Human Rights 56 - Companies Act 1985 242A [ Bailii ] Â The Secretary of State for Health, Dorset County Council -v- The Personal Representative of Christopher Beeson Times, 02 January 2003; Gazette, 13 March 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1812 18 Dec 2002 CA Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Waller, The President Administrative, Human Rights The deceased had been adjudged by his local authority to have deprived himself of his house under the Regulations. Complaint was made that the procedure did not allow an appeal and therefore deprived him of his rights under article 6. Held: The applicant's human rights were engaged by the decision. When looking at whether judicial review was a sufficient remedy, the court must look to the statutory context. The first recommendation by the panel lacked the necessary independence, but that decision was not rendered valueless. The availability of judicial review would very likely cure any defect in the initial decision in the absence of some special feature. Laws LJ said that there is some danger of undermining legal certainty by excessive debates over how many angels can stand on the head of the article 6 pin. European Convention on Human Rights 6 - National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2977) 25 - Local Authority Social Services (Complaints Procedure) Order 1990 (1990 No 2244) 7B(3) 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Davies -v- Health and Safety Executive Times, 27 December 2002 18 Dec 2002 CA Tuckey LJ, Douglas Brown, Gordon JJ Health and Safety, Human Rights The defendant complained that section 40 imposed a burden of proof upon him which infringed the presumption of innocence and his right to a fair trial. The trial judge held that the burden imposed a legal burden rather than an evidential one. Held: The Act could not be read down so as to impose only an evidential burden on the defendant. The court applied the three stage test from Kebilene, asking what the prosecution had first to prove to transfer the burden, then what are the characteristics of what the defendant had to prove, and what was the threat to society addressed by the transfer of the burden. Here, there was no threat of imprisonment, and enforcement would be impossible without such a transfer. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 33(1)(a) 40 1 Cites Â Regina (D) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 31 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2805 (Admin); [2003] 1 WLR 1318 19 Dec 2002 QBD Stanley Burton J Human Rights, Prisons The applicant had been a discretionary life prisoner. His minimum period of detention had passed, but he continued to be detained under a transfer order for his treatment as mental health patient. Held: The absence of any means for him to challenge his continued detention infringed his rights. Had the Mental Health Review Tribunal decided he was no longer to be detained, the Secretary of State had a discretion as to whether the case should then be referred to the Discretionary Lifers Panel. The claimant had a right to such a referral. The case of Benjamin now required the procedure to recognise that right. The legislation was not compatible with the Convention because a patient in respect of whom a Tribunal notified the Home Secretary that he should be conditionally discharged, but that if he were not discharged he should continue to be detained in hospital (see section 74(1)(a) and (b)), did not have a legal right to have his case considered by the Parole Board. European Convention on Human Rights 5.4 - Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 - Mental Health Act 1983 74 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Paola Esposito -v- Italy 30883/96; [2002] ECHR 833; 30883/96 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] Â Spence, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Office [2002] EWHC 2717 (Admin) 19 Dec 2002 Admn Prisons, Human Rights 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Logica-Moveis de Organizacao LDA -v- Portugal 54483/00; [2002] ECHR 836 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Logica - Moveis De Organizacao, Lda. -c- Portugal 54483/00; [2002] ECHR 830 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Scurci Chimenti -v- Italy 33227/96 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights, Housing Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award The applicant had let her flat. Her action to recover possession through the courts had taken 10 years, largely because of the lack of police support in enforcing her lawful attempts to recover possession under court orders, and she complained that this infringed her Protocol 1 article 1 rights. Held: The court in Saffi had stated its view of the law in this situation. The case was well founded, and the claimant was awarded damages and costs. European Convention on Human Rights 1 1 Cites Â Auditore -c- Italie 35550/97; [2002] ECHR 819; [2002] ECHR 825 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zazzeri -c- Italie 35006/97; [2002] ECHR 838; [2002] ECHR 844 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sanella -v- Italy 32644/96; [2002] ECHR 835; 32644/96; [2002] ECHR 841 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fiorani -v- Italy 33909/96; 33909/96 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Fleres -v- Italy 34454/97; [2002] ECHR 823; 34454/97; [2002] ECHR 829 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fiorani -v- Italy 33909/96; [2002] ECHR 821; 33909/96; [2002] ECHR 827 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Folliero -v- Italy 33376/96; [2002] ECHR 824; 33376/96; [2002] ECHR 830 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Scurci Chimenti -v- Italy 33227/96; [2002] ECHR 837; 33227/96; [2002] ECHR 843 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Culjak and Others -v- Croatia 58115/00; [2002] ECHR 820; 58115/00; [2002] ECHR 826 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Geni Srl -v- Italy 32662/96; [2002] ECHR 825; 32662/96; [2002] ECHR 831 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Salapa -v- Poland 355489/97 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3 ; Violation of Art. 5-4 ; No violation of Art. 6-1 ; Violation of Art. 8 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Â Â MC -v- Italy; ECHR 19-Dec-2002 - 32391/96; [2002] ECHR 837 Â Guidi and Others -v- Italy 32374/96; [2002] ECHR 827; 32374/96; [2002] ECHR 833 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â M P -v- Italy 31923/96; [2002] ECHR 838 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] Â Giagnoni and Finotello -v- Italy 31663/96; [2002] ECHR 826; 31663/96; [2002] ECHR 832 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Savio -v- Italy 31012/96; [2002] ECHR 836; 31012/96; [2002] ECHR 842 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Paola Esposito -v- Italy 30883/96; [2002] ECHR 839 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] Â Immobiliare Sole Srl -v- Italy 32766/96; [2002] ECHR 828; 32766/96; [2002] ECHR 834 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Immobiliare Sole Srl -v- Italy 32766/96; 32766/96 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Culjak and Others -v- Croatia 58115/00; 58115/00 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Fiorentini Vizzini -v- Italy 39451/98; 39451/98 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Fleres -v- Italy 34454/97; 34454/97 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award Â Fiorentini Vizzini -v- Italy 39451/98; [2002] ECHR 822; 39451/98; [2002] ECHR 828 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Folliero -v- Italy 33376/96; 33376/96 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Salapa -v- Poland 35489/97; [2002] ECHR 834; [2002] ECHR 840 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3 ; Violation of Art. 5-4 ; No violation of Art. 6-1 ; Violation of Art. 8 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Geni Srl -v- Italy 32662/96; 32662/96 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Sanella -v- Italy 32644/96; 32644/96 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â M C -v- Italy 32391/96; [2002] ECHR 831; 32391/96 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] Â Guidi and Others -v- Italy 32374/96; 32374/96 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â M P -v- Italy 31923/96; [2002] ECHR 832 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] Â Giagnoni and Finotello -v- Italy 31663/96; 31663/96 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award Â Savio -v- Italy 31012/96; 31012/96 19 Dec 2002 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award Â In re Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation Times, 17 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2825 (QB) 20 Dec 2002 QBD Nelson J Personal Injury, Transport, European, Human Rights, Litigation Practice The claimants claimed to have suffered deep vein thrombosis having been sat in cramped conditions for long periods whilst travelling by air. They sought compensation, saying that the failure by the airlines to warn them and take steps to minimise the dangers was culpable. Under the Convention they had to establish that the injuries constituted accidents. Held: The injuries were not accidents. The test was set out in Morris, namely 'a simple criterion of causation by an accident'. An accident is 'an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger' (Saks). There was nothing in the respective flights which satisfied these tests. Article 17 was not fault based, nor was any theory of risk allocation to be applied, and the Convention was the exclusive remedy. Neither Human Rights law nor European regulations provided alternative remedies. Warsaw Convention on International Carriage by Air 1929 17 - Carriage by Air Act 1961 - EC Regulation 2027/97/EC on air carrier liability in the event of accidents - European Convention on Human Rights 6 8 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Prudential Assurance Co Ltd -v- Prudential Insurance Co of America Times, 02 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2809 20 Dec 2002 ChD Sir Andrew Morritt VC Human Rights, Litigation Practice, Evidence The parties had undertaken negotiations on a 'without prejudice' basis. One now sought freedom to rely upon the other's statements. Held: There was a need to balance the right to freedom of expression, against the need to protect the rights of others. The protection from repetition before a court of admissions made 'without prejudice' should be limited to those occasions where the public interests underlying the rule were plainly applicable. The "without prejudice" rule must be applied carefully and only in cases to which the public interest which underlies the rule requires it to be applied: "Article 10 [ECHR, s.12(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998] confers on everyone the right of freedom to expression, including the right 'to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers'. But that right is subject to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights of others. Prima facie, therefore, the right is engaged by the 'without prejudice' rule but justified by the public interests which underlie it. But what this part of the case does is emphasise the need to apply the 'without prejudice' rule with restraint and only in cases to which the public interests underlying the rule are plainly applicable." European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Human Rights - From: 2002 To: 2002